By on January 22, 2019

You’ve read no shortage of commentary about General Motors’ new truck engine on these digital pages — from the 2.7-liter four-cylinder‘s impressive on-paper power figures (310 hp, 348 lb-ft), to the continuing rivalry between GM and Ford, to the rather slim fuel economy gap separating it from its eight-cylinder stablemates. You’ve also read about GM’s reluctance to mention that the engine is, in fact, a four-cylinder.

Now, two real-world tests prove that your mileage may indeed vary — and 2.7 Turbo owners might not be happy with the results.

Car and Driver claims its recent test of a 2019 Chevrolet Silverado RST double cab 4×4 left them wanting more. More MPGs, that is. In a run through a 200-mile, 75 mph highway course, the 2.7-liter pickup not only fell below the vehicle’s EPA rating, it also returned worse fuel economy than a similar model equipped with a 5.3-liter V8 performing the same test.

Worse still, the 2.7-liter tied the gas mileage returned by a truck powered by GM’s revered 6.2-liter V8.

While GM’s 5.3- and 6.2-liter V8s recently saw the addition of cylinder-juggling Dynamic Fuel Management, the 2.7-liter’s combination of small displacement, turbocharging, and a host of fuel-saving measures conspires to return an EPA combined rating of 20 mpg in the particular truck tested by Car and Driver, compared to the 5.3-liter’s 18 mpg. On the highway, both trucks rate a 22 mpg figure.

In a high-speed highway slog that didn’t line up with the EPA’s more tepid testing cycle, C&D discovered that the “2.7T averaged 18 mpg over the 200-mile test, a 28 percent drop from the 21 mpg we observed in the 5.3-liter RST Crew Cab, which was a full 314 pounds heavier.”

The publication notes that, at 75 mph, the 2.7’s turbo was likely online, helping push the wall-faced Silverado through the resistant atmosphere. At a lower speed, like that seen in an EPA test, it’s likely the engine’s turbocharger would sit idle, returning the operator a higher MPG figure.

“Despite its 6.2-liter V-8 having more than twice the displacement and 110 additional horsepower—it also gets a 10-speed automatic rather than the 8-speed—the Denali managed to tie the 2.7T’s 18-mpg HFE result,” the publication noted. “The only half-ton pickup we’ve tested that has done worse on the HFE test is a 2017 Toyota Tundra SR5 fitted with the TRD Off Road package. It got 17 mpg.”

It also noted that a test of the Ford F-150 Raptor returned a result identical to the 2.7-liter GM product. It’s too bad the publication didn’t state what the temperature was during the two Silverado tests, as lower air temps reduce a vehicle’s fuel economy to some degree. The same goes for the other tested vehicles. We don’t know exactly where C&D tested these vehicles and on what day.

Still, recording significantly worse mileage in a four-cylinder versus a V8 is a jarring event, and one that might provide food for thought for prospective GM truck buyers.

[Images: General Motors]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

139 Comments on “GM’s 2.7-liter Pickup Engine Comes Up Short in Real-world MPG Test...”


  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Weird. It’s almost as if these tiny, high strung turbo engines have to be under boost at all times increasing the fuel used.

    A tiny engine at it’s limit all the time will not be as efficient as a bigger engine that’s not near it’s limit.

    • 0 avatar
      ahintofpepperjack

      But this engine should be nowhere near it’s limit crusing at 75MPh. I have an older Silverado with the 195hp 4.3L V6 and it cruses at 75MPH without issue with 115 less horsepower and 4 less gears in the transmission. And it does so achieving about the same MPG as the 2.7T did on this test. Granted my truck is lighter, but I would assume the newer trucks are more aerodynamic, which should have a greater affect at 75MPH.

    • 0 avatar
      RangerM

      Above 75 mph, my 2013 EB F150 crew (3.15 diff) can barely crest 20 MPG. But I don’t drive like that.

      At 70, it can do about 22-23.

      At 65, it’ll happily do 25+ mpg all day.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        @RangerM… 2.7 or 3.5 EcoBoost?

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          They didn’t have the 2.7 until the 2015 redesign. So, likely the 3.5.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Had to ask cause I’m fairly certain that the 2.7TT is rated at 25 highway with the 10 speed auto.

            If it could get that it would beat my 2nd gen V6 Highlander.

        • 0 avatar
          RangerM

          @PrincipalDan

          3.5. It was the only one available in 2013 as Kyree said.

          It’s not a 4×4, but simply a stock F150 SuperCrew XLT with the 3.15 rear (e-lock) diff.

          It’s primarily a commuter, so empty bed most of the time; serving time as a modern day “Country Squire”. Those MPG figures are highway, btw. I’m usually in the ~20 (+/- 1) mpg range in mixed driving. I’m also in the NC Piedmont, so no mountainous terrain.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        My old 2000 Saab 9-5 5-speed with a tow dolly and a car, about 7,500 combined, would see 23.5 mpg at 65 mph.

      • 0 avatar
        tomLU86

        22mpg at 70 mph–that is impressive!

        I had a 2008 Silverado, the mpg computer was pretty accurate. If I kept the cruise around 63 mph, I’d get 20mpg, which I thought was very impressive! That truck had the 5.3, 4WD, and it felt pretty quick to me!

        Good looking too…was a great truck!

      • 0 avatar
        packardhell1

        So, if my commute maxes out at 60 (local highways), I’d get decent mileage in this configuration (or one similar to yours). Nice!

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        There is your objective illustration of the fact that wind resistance increases with the cube of speed right there.

        I would like to see how this 2.7 motor compares with other when in city driving. It may well have an edge there where it is not pushing a house sized brick through a wall of unwilling air.

        Just a wild guess here, but I’ll bet if my Corolla had the frontal area and drag coefficient of a modern pickup truck, the high rpms and open throttle settings needed at 75 would pull the 1.8 liter’s MPG right down to the 20mpg zone. I am guessing that the aerodynamic penalty is a fixed loss that demands a fixed amount of energy to overcome.

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      Which brings up the question, why not test milage under a load? Like pulling a trailer or some weight in the bed.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      EBFlex – Actually, technically speaking, a tiny engine near its limit should in fact be more efficient than a bigger engine that is loafing along. However, this isn’t really a tiny engine in terms of power output, as shown by the HP rating that is about 87% of the larger V8’s rating.

      So the point is that, at 75mph, both engines are actually loafing along. The problem is that the 2.7L turbo appears to be at a less optimal point on its efficiency curve than the 5.3L V8 is on its curve.

    • 0 avatar
      TheSnoMan

      Many do not understand that all EPA tests are conducted by law with 93 octane not 87. 87 octane is a hold over from 70’s and low compression non turbo engines. You should always use 93 in a turbo towing. I own a turbo car and while it will run on 87, it is a completely different animal on 93 octane. Engine can tolerate 87 octane but MPG and power will suffer.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    No free lunch.

    It takes of lot of power to push that big, heavy brick of a truck thru the air.

    A turbo just forces more air/fuel into smaller displacement.

    The 2.7 Turbo probably would fare better if the test had been driving in the streets of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens, where the speed limit is 25 mph. Throw in a lot of idle time at stoplights and waiting for double parked motorists to move their cars, and now the 2.7 liter might do better, since it (should) take a lot less fuel to idle 2.7 liters and 4 cylinders, than 5.3 and 8 (almost double).

    For the other 98% of America, the 2.7T is probably a bad choice, or a gimmick for GM to ace the EPA tests.

    Perhaps GM can rename it the “2.7 Trump Turbo Queens Edition”, in honor of our President from Queens, and pitch it as a NYC/metro NY/NJ/LI regional option package.

    In the late 70s, I remember there was a special Cutlass when I was a kid..the LION edition, 2-tone paint “for Long Island only” (Long Island Oldsmobile….Network?).

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Exactly. I have a feeling this model is aimed more at commercial buyers who do a lot of in-town driving. It’d be interesting to see a test that aligns more closely with this type of use, though I suspect any improvement would probably still be marginal.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      It looks like you haven’t heard about GM’s dynamic fuel management.

      All the newest engines from GM including the 2.7T, 5.3 V8, and 6.2 V8 all can run on a single cylinder. So in stop and go city traffic, they are probably all running on one cylinder at some point. Only difference is when accelerating, the V8s will probably have all activated, while the turbo will be into the boost.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      The reality is a lot of people use them for commuting and commuting on the hwys in many cities means you are lucky if you make it over 40-50mph.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      Lots of pickup trucks live in cities.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    YMMV, indeed.

  • avatar
    R Henry

    Top line, middle line, and bottom line:

    The new GM trucks are a FAIL. The new 2.7L engine does not achieve its design objective, and the body is less aerodynamic than its predecessor.

    This FAIL will hurt GM, deeply. This is their most important product, and they screwed it up.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Yep. This is one of the greatest botch jobs the automotive world has seen in recent years.

      Look at what Ram did (build the best truck on the market by a country mile) and then look at what GM did (complete abortion). If Ram can do such an amazing job, GM should have at least come close.

      • 0 avatar
        tomLU86

        The C/D article also referenced an upcoming GM in-line 6 diesel.

        I’d be willing to bet THAT motor will get better mpg than the 2.7 Turbo in tests, and in real life. How will it compare to Ram and Ford?

        • 0 avatar
          R Henry

          The market for gas engines and diesel engines have a fairly small area of convergence, as such, I think of them as two distinct markets.

          If the GM Diesel is price comparable to RAM and Ford gas engines, that changes the calculus, but diesel engines in US trucks ALWAYS come with a price premium. I don’t think any meaningful comparisons can be made here.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        Except that when discussing MPG the 2019 Ram did not do an amazing job according a very thorough and accurate test done by TFL late last year in a 3 truck comparison. The Ram had the new eTorque setup which rates at 22 highway and the best they got was 4 lower or a hair under 18 on the same loop that the Silverado RST 5.3 DFM engine actually came very close to it’s 20 highway figure. The new Ram has a nice interior and an available larger touch screen but when it comes to mileage and power the Silverado has it beat with the 5.3 on the former and the 6.2 on the latter.

    • 0 avatar
      EquipmentJunkie

      Agreed. This is GM’s 2006 Civic. I am not throwing them under the bus. It is very difficult to aim at a moving target with development times like they are.
      GM aimed and missed on this one. I still have not seen one of the new trucks on the road yet.

      I predict a “mild refresh” of these trucks in two years. Grill and interior will have major facelifts.

      • 0 avatar
        gtem

        EJ, you mean Honda’s 2012 Civic? The ’06 was the one that brought out the polarizing “space ship” design and bi-level dash, and was ultimately very well received by the press. the 2012 (9th gen) was the one that came out and immediately dragged over the coals for going cheap when everyone else was making their compacts nicer (Cruze, Focus, Elantra).

    • 0 avatar
      slap

      In several reviews of trucks from the big 3, the GM truck was way behind the Ram and Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      Do you have any proof why the truck is less aerodynamic than the previous model when GM specifically worked to improve it? Sounds like you’re just rambling on.

      http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/07/2019-silverado-aero-enhancing-air-curtains-feature-spotlight/amp/

      • 0 avatar
        R Henry

        I don’t have the link, but the source is here…TTAC.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        Chevy makes these claims, bts, but a low coefficient of drag (CoD). is still multiplied by the frontal area, which is huge–if anything, bigger than ever. Meaning the truck’s aerodynamics, despite the improvements, are worse than ever. This truck needs a roofline a full foot lower, a width a full foot narrower and a stance at least three inches lower. There is absolutely no reason a full-sized truck has to be as large as it is.

  • avatar
    Middle-Aged (Ex-Miata) Man

    This is pretty much a Mad Libs headline. “GM’s ______ Comes Up Short ______.”

  • avatar
    86er

    A bridge too far.

  • avatar
    ajla

    GM’s strategy with the 6.2L and the 10A is not very good. Given what the competition offers, they should increase the availability of both.

    The 2.7T is weird situation. My only explanation is that there are plans to stick a battery on it for a future hybrid or PHEV version.

    • 0 avatar
      bts

      Only Ford offers the ten speed on more models.

      RAM only offers an eight speed.

      The fuel economy increase going from an eight speed to ten speeds is very slight, and isn’t likely worth the added cost to the consumer on a lower model like the 5.3.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I disagree completely with your last sentence.

        I think Ford has the right idea here (I’m thinking that a lot lately).

        • 0 avatar
          bts

          I’m guessing it didn’t increase a full number on the EPA rating, so they didn’t think it was worth using more gears.

          They might be production limited on the number of transmissions at the moment, but you’re right, it’s likely going to save the consumer some money and make the driving experience better.

    • 0 avatar
      RSF

      ajla- I’m no fan of the 4 cylinder, but I bet it would out-perform the 5.3 at higher elevations since it’s turbocharged.

  • avatar
    thalter

    I just don’t get the cognitive dissonance here. This is literally answering a question no one is asking, akin to asking for a compact car that will tow 10,000 lbs.

    Is anyone who is dropping 40K+ on a pickup really that concerned about an extra 1 or 2 MPG? Unless it is some sort of CAFE play, I see no reason for this truck to exist.

    • 0 avatar
      George B

      thalter, I’m convinced GM and most other auto manufacturers are designing engines, transmissions, and control software specifically to perform well on the EPA test cycle. Rather than set high mpg requirements for test cycles that don’t account for real highway speeds, the test should include the effects of aerodynamic drag for a typical 75 mph highway speed.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Whatever the goal, this truck/engine combo would not do well in the real world where drivers often cruise at 85+ mpg on the Interstate.

        This particular incarnation of truck/engine combo should be limited for use in innercity stop and go driving. In that driving environment it probably would do better than the 5.3L or larger NA engines.

        So the real world application of this truck/engine combo is constrained, if not limited.

        • 0 avatar
          ahintofpepperjack

          Even here in the flat and open state of Minnesota, nobody is “often cruising at 85+ mph on the interstate”.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Dude, you obviously have not driven on I-10 through TX, NM, AZ where the speedlimit is 75.

            Hell, even on US70 and US54 where the speedlimit is 75, people routinely cruise at 85+.

          • 0 avatar
            ahintofpepperjack

            No, I live in the Midwest. I am just pointing out that the “real world” includes other areas than yours.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Yes. I understood that.

            But the ‘real world’ applies differently to different people, and I assume that sales of this vehicle are not limited to only certain individuals’ interpretation of their real world, because C/D has been known to flog their vehicles to appease as many readers as they possibly can.

            Hence, when this vehicle is pushed, these results.

            May not apply to your real world, but it would apply to mine, even though I would not buy this particular version of truck for myself. Others might.

          • 0 avatar
            Slocum

            The speed limit is 75 on rural stretches of interstate in Michigan. Lots of folks on those roads headed ‘up north’ are pushing 85.

          • 0 avatar
            Flipper35

            If you aren’t doing 85 in Madison on the beltline you will get run over.

          • 0 avatar
            sgeffe

            Loved the driving in Minnesota a couple years ago: heading west from Ohio through Indiana into Illinois, the left-lane bandits all but disappeared. In Wisconsin and Minnesota, the left-lane bandits I did encounter were..surprise!..sporting Ohio plates!

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        If they did that, manufacturers might actually start making trucks sleeker and more aerodynamic.

  • avatar
    EGSE

    R Henry is right; this will really hurt them. Owners of the truck will blame GM for the poor real-world FE and will now enjoy reduced resale value beyond the perceived stigma of a four-pot engine. I’d expect dealers to push back on putting them in their inventory and any already on the lot will probably need some incentives to move. It makes the V6 Ram look even better.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Somehow, I’m not surprised.

    BTW, it’s C/D for Car and Driver, not C&D.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “C&D discovered that the “2.7T averaged 18 mpg over the 200-mile test, a 28 percent drop from the 21 mpg we observed in the 5.3-liter RST Crew Cab, which was a full 314 pounds heavier.””

    Thank you for proving this whole avenue of “technology” sucks.

    • 0 avatar
      EGSE

      I don’t think the technology sucks, misapplied yes, but the *choice* GM made sure did. I’d posit the technology put into the 5.3-liter shows up well given the delta between the two configurations.

      I’m mystified as to what GM was thinking when they signed off on it. They certainly had development units to test this setup and presumably did their marketing due diligence. Where’s the upside to this?

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Although we may agree the GM implementation is incredibly flawed, I view the technology overall at fault for allowing this to happen. The simple physics of ever increasing mass combined with ever shrinking engine displacement does not make rational sense. This could have been tried thirty years ago but manufacturers had more sense.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        EGSE, the upside for GM is they get to sell more high profit vehicles within the constraints of the federal government fuel economy requirements. Same reason they built pickup trucks and SUVs capable of running on E85.

      • 0 avatar
        ahintofpepperjack

        This 2.7T engine would probably do much better as a V6 replacement in something a little smaller like the Colorado.

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      You know, 18mpg is only about 15% less than 21mpg.

      Where’s the 28% from? 18mpg vs 21 mpg means car will use about 11.6% more fuel.

  • avatar
    Big Wheel

    I read the same article on C/D’s website. There is merit to the 4-cylinder getting worse FE than the V8. Still, I’d like to know the weather conditions for the tests (ambient temps, humidity, etc.), roads dry or wet (I’m assuming dry), etc. I’d also like to know the axle ratios in those trucks.

  • avatar
    cammark

    I didn’t see it in the linked Car and Driver article, what was the test method? how did they calculate MPG?

    Without a reasonably scientific test method this is at best a mildly entertaining story about some guys who drove a few trucks around.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      “real world” = unscientific.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        It may be unscientific, but by God, that’s where we all have to live, not in some make-believe woulda, coulda, shoulda utopia.

      • 0 avatar
        cammark

        Verify your “rigorously” scientific results in the real world with “reasonably” scientific methods.

        • 0 avatar
          brn

          cammark, That, I can accept. We need the science and it should be validated in the “real world” If done in conjunction, it can be beneficial. Far too often “real world” tests only do the later, which has limited value.

      • 0 avatar
        SPPPP

        I believe that C&D has a specific highway loop that they use for these 75-mph mileage tests. So they have controlled for one variable. Use of cruise control whenever possible minimizes another variable – the driver’s application of the throttle. It’s true that variables like weather and potholes are not controlled. But if you could only test on certain days in certain seasons, it would be very hard to put out time-sensitive magazine and web content. And if you turned a 200-mile test into a 2,000-mile test, it would cost 10 times as much. Who is willing to pay for it?

  • avatar
    Dan

    There are too many uncontrolled variables in this test for the result to be worth anything.

    Even if there weren’t, gas is cheap enough that this test still isn’t worth anything.

    The only people who give a quarter of a chit about 1 mpg in the post-fracking world are fleet managers who buy white work trucks (where this motor isn’t offered) and self hating progressives who don’t buy trucks at all.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    I love C/D in-depth tests.

    FYI the Hemi Grand Cherokee and Durango got better real world fuel economy on the test loop than the V6 version.

  • avatar
    brn

    “2.7T averaged 18 mpg over the 200-mile test, a 28 percent drop from the 21 mpg we observed in the 5.3-liter RST Crew Cab”

    C&D can’t do math. If the got this wrong, what else did they get wrong?

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    “In a run through a 200-mile, 75 mph highway course, the 2.7-liter pickup not only fell below the vehicle’s EPA rating…”

    Stop right there. The average speed in the EPA highway test is 48 mph.

    Edmunds routinely does the same thing – running vehicles over desert mountains at 75 mph and then complaining that they don’t achieve EPA figures.

    Having said that, IIRC Ford’s 2.3 EcoBoost has the same problem, in which the V8 versions run better and get the same mileage in daily use.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Even the EPA’s test cycle says the 2.7T and the 5.3/8A will get the same highway fuel economy (both 2WD and 4WD).

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      The speed difference indicates this is mostly an aero problem. Also don’t the GM V8s have cylinder deactivation? My ‘Vette does. If so then at cruising speeds the V8 is in fact a V4. So going up against a turbo 4 I would assume the mileage would be very similar. Enough so that altitude or temperature would likely create bigger differences.

    • 0 avatar
      DweezilSFV

      As buyers have for 40 some odd years: “But the sticker said XX mpg”.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      Yes, the sentence mixes apples and oranges, but C&D knows the difference in the use cases. I like the fact that they do this 75mph test, not as a check on the EPA rating, but as a second data point. And whether the EPA changes their test for more real-world use or not, C&D’s information is out there as a reference that you can use to compare different models.

  • avatar
    frankfan42

    Was at the NAIAS yesterday and was shocked at how crappy the interiors were in GM trucks that had 6ok plus prices. Combine this with virtually unprecedented fuel economy LOSSES and the knowledge that GM is ever more dependant on trucks with the cancellation of so many cars and GM is poised for dangerous times if/when fuel spikes in the future.
    Retail buyers will run away when they can’t afford these things anymore, and fleet buyers have to scratcing their heads.
    The 2.7 is likely slated for more products and electric assist. Add to the mix that people are angry at GM over massive layoffs after the taxpayers bailed them out- stir well and ???

  • avatar

    Seriously, WHAT in the hell is going on at GM? The new Silverado is a complete dud. Start with the horrendous front styling. Add in subpar interior design and materials. Finish with an overworked 4 banger under the hood. Do they have saboteurs from RAM and Ford on the payroll?

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      They’re trying too hard to get to where Ford is with their trucks.

      But the boys and girls at GM have to fight that stigma of all those former GM fans, like myself, who have left the fold and ain’t comin’ back.

      There weren’t enough GM fans who bought GM before GM died in 2008 and there haven’t been enough GM fans who’ll buy GM after GM was resurrected with taxpayer money in 2009.

      The 2.7T would probably be a lot of fun in a small SUV destined for city use. But at highway speeds ANY squirrel engine will suck gas like we’ll never run out of oil.

      Or party like when gas cost 25-cents a gallon.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    NOT unexpected. I believe I said so as much in the original thread about this engine. You want that fuel mileage, it needs to be in a smaller–MUCH smaller–truck.

  • avatar
    bts

    What I’d like to see is a comparison of the 2.7 T with the 4.3 V6 in real world driving.

    GM only offers the 4.3 with a 6 speed transmission vs the 2.7 T that has 8 speeds, so it’s not exactly a fair comparison. Still, I’d think the 4.3 will come very close.

    • 0 avatar
      ahintofpepperjack

      The 4.3L is a great engine and I would assume cheaper to manufacture. It makes as much power as the early 5.3L V8’s made too. They should just put the 8 speed behind it and it would likely get better MPG than this 2.7T.

  • avatar
    dividebytube

    I could never hit EPA MPG ratings – especially city – in the boosted cars I’ve owned. It’s the nature of trying to get a 1.6L turbo engine moving, in this case, a Mini Countryman. You get on the boost to get into the torque, and also winding out the engine a little bit where the power band is.

    Only way I could get even close to EPA was on the highway and driving very conservatively.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Ironically, I hit it routinely in my 2015 F150 with the twin turbo 2.7 (2wd, super crew). The Fiesta is never even close but that has more to do with 2 year rental + loose nut behind the wheel. If I shifted more when the little arrow said shift rather than when the tach hits the red portion I’d be better off on that front.

    • 0 avatar
      ttacgreg

      I have always managed to exceed the EPA highway figures for overall average mileage on all of my cars. Yes I do drive sticks and keep RPM’s low and more open throttle settings to reduce pumping loss etc. That said, I seriously think being at 9000 ft elevation reduces air resistance. There are about 1/4 to 1/3 less air molecules to push around up here.

  • avatar
    ToddAtlasF1

    One mile per gallon less than the port injected, infinite lifetime 5.7 liter V8 in the Tundra? Who needs particulate emissions? Why are we turning all of our gasoline powered vehicles back into gross polluters with direct injection and turbos? How long will it be until the media decides that the greatest threat to the planet du jour is the gas engine particulate emissions that result from direct injection, necessitating the removal of every direct injected vehicle from the roads?

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      When will everyone figure out that all vehicles need to die that dont say Toyota on them?

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      But the Tundra is at the bottom of the fuel economy heap. Other turbos (and v8s) get it right. I’ve come to prefer the characteristics of turbocharged motors in trucks.

      • 0 avatar
        JD-Shifty

        people will pay a little more for gas when they know they have a 20 year truck

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Art, a lot of Americans just don’t care about the price of gas, nor the pollution of ICE vehicles.

        If they did they wouldn’t be flying in polluting jet airplanes or buy pickup trucks like there’s no tomorrow.

        For many Americans, the bigger, the better. If they can afford it, even better. If not, there’s always the repo man.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Man, do I put on my crew cab pickup owning hat or my leaf owning hat lol. People like pickups because if you aren’t looking for sporty, the most capability you can get for the money. Sure there are image buyers, but certainly that is no higher percentage than those rocking EVs for image. They are just very versatile and useful vehicles for the money.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            You know it’s all in good natured fun.

            Each of ttac’s B&B have their own values when it comes to their ride of choice, but the actual annual sales numbers and SAAR tell the real story, the whole story and nothing but the sordid truth.

            I always, and I really mean always, get a kick out of the people that I know who bought an EV or PHEV like a Volt, and then leave it parked 99% of the time.

            And I know two people in my area who did just that. I joke with them that they are trying to reduce their carbon footprint by having a Volt or a Prius in their garage at home.

            That usually brings a smirk, especially when their wife pops her head out and yells at me, “I told him he’d never use the damn thing!!!”

            Old codgers do strange things, but none weirder than when they have money.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            You aren’t wrong on old codgers and money. Like I said in a post the other day, you aren’t a wierdo if you have money…you are excentric.

            Having said all that, the more I drive that leaf the more I can see owning a more modern electric as my daily. I leased the ST because I can see long term it getting old (as I get older). The leaf takes off smooth, effortless and quietly. It is way closer to an old Town Car in that respect than the econobox it is.

            I’ll never dump the truck though. 2015, 60k and title in hand. My wife is actually warming up to it as a daily. If her Hyundai stays parked I may dump it.

            But yeah, count me among the former skeptics that is at least cautiously optimistic on electrics now. Even that whole range anxiety thing was gone after like 3 days.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            If something works for you, stick with it.

            I have toyed with the idea of a PHEV to replace my 1989 Camry V6, when it dies, but my wife has said that she favors an all-around general purpose vehicle that can do double duty as a sedan AND a truck. Kinda eliminating the need for two vehicles.

            So, once we settle down in one place again, rather than running away from home time and time again, it’ll probably be another 4dr 4×4 pickup truck, with side steps.

            And for me there’s only one brand that has been good to me.

            Biggest worry at my age of course is buying a brand new truck, and then dying unexpectedly the next day.

            And by the time we no longer want to travel all over the world, the whole automotive landscape in America may have changed.

            In that case, we just have to improvise, adapt and overcome.

            Who knows, by then 4-wheelmotor 4dr BEV pickup trucks may be the norm, with a 7500-watt Honda 230-volt AC generator mounted in the bed for those occasions when there are no recharging stations nearby.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Once again, the EPA needs to revise its test protocol. The 2008 revision helped some.

    I suspect that if the EPA’s test protocol reflected more realistic conditions, engines such as this 2.7-I4 would disappear, at least from truck applications.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      That’s the difference between the Ford turbos and this. Certainly there is some EPA gaming built into the Fords (I am always very close if not spot on with my 2.7), but at the end of the day, fuel economy be darned, they are excellent truck engines. I’ll get a lot of “but my wife’s cousins aunt read in a forum they suck), but the market and reputible agencies that measure things like reliability have spoken. They are solid and accepted motors in the truck world. This GM effort, this far seems like a half arsed effort. Time will tell though…people said the same crap about the Fords. But Ford was all in. Yes there is the 5.0 but IIRC it is either the tired or least chosen motor. GM is saying “Here’s a little fuel saver, but you know you really want the 6.2”. Ford just said “Here’s a Turbo V6 that tows and hauls a lot”.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    This is what you get when vehicles are designed by government regulators instead of engineers.

  • avatar
    Leonard Ostrander

    No doubt people with a fetish for walls and “wall faced trucks” can’t even spell aerodynamic, let alone have a clue about what it means.

  • avatar
    cartime

    This is useless information without knowing axle ratios.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    The entire automotive industry’s response to increasingly high required EPA mileage numbers is uniform: no need to single out GM for criticism. That response is to move to smaller displacement, boosted engines. So long as the EPA test includes significant idle and coasting segments, a small engine will win every time. I don’t think that there’s a serious argument that a small engine, operated on boost is necessarily more fuel efficient than a larger, naturally aspirated engine doing the same work.

    I’m guessing that GM’s 2.7 liter 4 is cheaper to make than Ford’s 2.7 liter V-6, which is available in their 1/2 ton pickups. Fewer moving parts and all that. They are otherwise comparable in output and, probably, fuel economy.

    FWIW, my 2.2 liter turbo 4 in my ’02 Saab wagon (250 hp) pretty much achieved its EPA ratings for both city and highway, at least when driven normally. I would reliably get 30 mpg at 65 or so mph carrying a part load on trips from DC to NYC and running the a/c. That was without modern trick camshafts and direct injection.

  • avatar
    ddr777

    I am not surprised, I used to get much better MPG from 2016 Accord 2.4 than my 2018 Accord 2.0T, the 2.0T is much more powerful but not as economical,
    This video might explain why.
    Why Small Turbo Engines Are Not Efficient:
    https://youtu.be/9aO2vC_iMTI

  • avatar
    pdog_phatpat

    Just another GM failure backed by the people who bailed this abortion of a company out. Say boys, whaddya say we go out and check out my new Truck. Its got a 4 CYLINDER! Said no self respecting full size truck owner, EVER.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Same goes for V6 powered “trucks”

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Yeah, let’s go back to the 460 and 454…because that is what you are going to need to match the capability of a modern turbocharged v6 in a truck. The market has spoken ant turbo motors have been accepted and are even in many circles becoming the preferred choice. GM just botched this one.

        Here is the thing, Ford took significant risk with the F150. From the aluminum body to going all in on the turbos as the volume motors. They we’re all in and it the results showed, love or hate them, the market has spoken on them and they are winners everywhere not an internet forum full of armchair CEOs. GM dipped their toe in the water with this truck. One Turbo motor…some Aluminum. They played it safe. At least Ram just played to their strengths. They do the Hemi really well so that’s what you get. And they gave it a class leading interior. As such there are reasons to buy a Ford or a Ram. The GM trucks you buy because you are a “Shevolay” man or whatever. There is no competitive reason to get one over the other 2 trucks. They have a great truck engine, like Dodge (hemi) and Ford (both Ecoboost). But unlike them they lock it up in the top trim levels. Idiotic.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “… let’s go back to the 460 and 454…because that is what you are going to need to match the capability of a modern turbocharged v6 in a truck.”

          Not really. The GM 6.2L is generally a match for the “normal” 3.5EB and clips the 3.5EB HO in some metrics. I don’t think it would need nearly 100 more cubes to surpass it. The rest of the Silverado sucks, but that’s GM for you.

          caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a22984237/2019-ford-f-150-vs-chevrolet-silverado-vs-ram-1500-pickup/

          I bought a new car with a turbo V6 and it’s fine. However, modern V8s are still awesome engines and are a lot of fun to drive. I’m happy the half-tons trucks are still offering them for now.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            Well sure, I dont want to loose V8s either. I just don’t think a v6 powered truck needs quotation marks. Different way to solve a problem is all. The 6.2 is a great motor. So is the 3.5 Ecoboost. One is commonly available in pretty much any trim level though. But they are both great motors and sales data validates this. The whole “no V6 in a truck” crowd are a bunch of luddites though. It isn’t 1982 anymore.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            Yea, I get it. I got the “Stinger is an econobox, should be $20K at most” from some folks on here due to cylinder count snobbing as well.

            I think the world is big enough for both (although it seems ICE-only might be on borrowed time anyway).

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          Ford didn’t go all in on the Turbo engines to start and in fact were quite surprised at the high take rate of the original 3.5 EB, so much so they struggled to meet demand. based on that success they did double down with the 2.7 and now they sell more F-150s with turbos than they do w/o.

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      pdog_phatpat Your posts are bereft of any source of intellect.

      • 0 avatar
        pdog_phatpat

        Youre right. I never mince words I tell it like it is. I’m sorry if it bothers you but from now maybe you can skip my comments if they make you race for your safe space. K? Thx.

    • 0 avatar
      HotPotato

      If you’re hanging out with people who think cylinder count is the only measure of an engine’s power, you don’t need more cylinders, you need smarter friends.

  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    ” let’s go back to the 460 and 454″….. those were the days my friend, I wished they’d never end…..

    But they did.

    Slow turning, stump pulling, gnarly grunt power from 800 rpm upwards.

    Sigh…..

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      Yeah…I miss that single digit MPG too. We had a 460 powered F250 back in the day. 8-12 mpg, all day, all the time

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        When I joined the AF in 1965, my dad lent me his ’60 Mercury Montclair until I could buy a car of my own at my new duty station.

        Mileage wasn’t great of course, but who cared? Gas cost next to nothing back then.

        A lotta good memories were made on the back seat of that Merc. And a lotta miles traveled, especially up US82 to Cloudcroft, NM, where my future wife lived at that time.

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          Well heck, everything was single digits back then. Yeah, nobody cared. Honestly I barely care now. My FJ80 was 13 mpg on a good day and I drove it through the peak of the last spike. I griped when I filled it up, but I only dumped it when it kept breaking and costing real money.

          People care less than they admit about fuel economy. Ecoboost don’t sell on fuel economy, the sell because of all that crap Dennis Leary is always talking about. It is telling that the most fuel efficient segment is dying. People want what they want and they will figure out how to pay for the gas.

  • avatar
    JoDa

    Car and Driver? What mileage did Truck and Granny get?

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    This doesn’t seem too bad. I just drove cross country in a new Lexus NX200t with a puny little 2.0L turbo 4 and my mpg was 21.5. And that car is half the size and half the capability and probably 2/3 the power of this Silverado.

    So yeah, put me in the small turbo engines suck bandwagon, at least on cars with a big front profile. My old GTI was fine and usually darn close to EPA. The BMW turbo 6s I get time in have actually been excellent. They work on cars since they’re not pushing so much air?

    It’s extra insulting when you could have equal or better economy plus a smoother and less complicated engine. V6 Lexus or a V8 Silverado.

    Maybe GM shouldn’t have offered this truck. I don’t know. But they’re certainly far from alone in the bad-mpg small turbo 4 cylinder department.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Carrera: Since I’ve been licensed to drive in 1993, I’ve owned a bunch of Hondas such as 1988 Civic (...
  • FreedMike: True, but any of those “cabbies” were tanks that would run a gazillion miles with proper...
  • Serpens: @jkross22 The GLA is just as much of a small SUV as it’s main competitor, the Audi Q3. They’re...
  • FreedMike: Once again, the system put one of my posts on the wrong thread. This new posting system is poor,...
  • FreedMike: Looks like one of those made-up midcentury cars in “The Incredibles.”

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