GM's 2.7-liter Pickup Engine Comes Up Short in Real-world MPG Test

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

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]

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 139 comments
  • JoDa JoDa on Jan 22, 2019

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

  • Jerome10 Jerome10 on Jan 23, 2019

    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.

  • Theflyersfan OK, I'm going to stretch the words "positive change" to the breaking point here, but there might be some positive change going on with the beaver grille here. This picture was at Car and Driver. You'll notice that the grille now dives into a larger lower air intake instead of really standing out in a sea of plastic. In darker colors like this blue, it somewhat conceals the absolute obscene amount of real estate this unneeded monstrosity of a failed styling attempt takes up. The Euro front plate might be hiding some sins as well. You be the judge.
  • Theflyersfan I know given the body style they'll sell dozens, but for those of us who grew up wanting a nice Prelude Si with 4WS but our student budgets said no way, it'd be interesting to see if Honda can persuade GenX-ers to open their wallets for one. Civic Type-R powertrain in a coupe body style? Mild hybrid if they have to? The holy grail will still be if Honda gives the ultimate middle finger towards all things EV and hybrid, hides a few engineers in the basement away from spy cameras and leaks, comes up with a limited run of 9,000 rpm engines and gives us the last gasp of the S2000 once again. A send off to remind us of when once they screamed before everything sounds like a whirring appliance.
  • Jeff Nice concept car. One can only dream.
  • Funky D The problem is not exclusively the cost of the vehicle. The problem is that there are too few use cases for BEVs that couldn't be done by a plug-in hybrid, with the latter having the ability to do long-range trips without requiring lengthy recharging and being better able to function in really cold climates.In our particular case, a plug-in hybrid would run in all electric mode for the vast majority of the miles we would drive on a regular basis. It would also charge faster and the battery replacement should be less expensive than its BEV counterpart.So the answer for me is a polite, but firm NO.
  • 3SpeedAutomatic 2012 Ford Escape V6 FWD at 147k miles:Just went thru a heavy maintenance cycle: full brake job with rotors and drums, replace top & bottom radiator hoses, radiator flush, transmission flush, replace valve cover gaskets (still leaks oil, but not as bad as before), & fan belt. Also, #4 fuel injector locked up. About $4.5k spread over 19 months. Sole means of transportation, so don't mind spending the money for reliability. Was going to replace prior to the above maintenance cycle, but COVID screwed up the market ( $4k markup over sticker including $400 for nitrogen in the tires), so bit the bullet. Now serious about replacing, but waiting for used and/or new car prices to fall a bit more. Have my eye on a particular SUV. Last I checked, had a $2.5k discount with great interest rate (better than my CU) for financing. Will keep on driving Escape as long as A/C works. 🚗🚗🚗
Next