My 2021 Silverado has the 2.7 turbo. I've had no problems. I was able to get the regular cab with a long box for $37K brand new from a dealership. It's my first new truck and also my first full sized truck.
GM should build an inline 6 version of this engine. 400 hp and 600tq on 87 octane mated to a 10 speed would be interesting. Probably not that great of fuel economy though.
GM was in fact working on an inline 6 engine family, they recently announced its cancelation. I heard this report on Autoline, an automotive news channel here on UA-cam
Lifter failures, btw, were only on the 8 cylinder engines with AFM/DFM. No lifter issues with the 2.7 because it uses a different method to control the cylinder deactivations.
I've owned one since 2021 Memorial Day weekend. So far I have 71000+ miles on it and no issues. I generally get over 23mpg with it on the highway and about 20mpg with just regular driving. When I pull my landscape trailer the mileage goes down to about 15 or so. The trailer has a High gate on the back that creates a lot of wind resistance. We'll see how it goes from here!
Damn that's impressive! No problems whatsoever?? I bought a brand 🆕 Tacoma TRD off-road & I had to take it to the dealer because the front diff actuator broke (or never worked) & got stuck in 4X4 & my AC didn't work from the 🏭 factory... i live in PHX so that sucked it was 120° & had to wait a week to get it fixed
@@honda116969I live in Phoenix also and my 2022 Tacomas ac heater blower fan self destructed and fans blades came off, no AC either and happened in august ,,,,this happened at 500 miles, payed that truck off and traded it for a new Colorado Trail Boss, I love this truck it’s a little beast! I got it calibrated to 430# torque too!
Alex Yes this motor has a lot of Tech in it. But you might want to look at the internals of the L3b before making a blanket statement about AFM lifters failing like the v-8 versions. This engine is DOHC that uses camshaft follower and hydraulic lash adjusters. Nothing in this engine is like the AFM lifters/system in the 5.3/6.2.
I Imagine the AFM is a different set up in this engine based up the 3 phase cam shaft. but a cam followers or a lifter does the same thing more or less. the v8's are all hydraulically adjusted as well. It's no secret that the 4 cylinder engines are having valve train failures. weather it's directly related to the AFM system that could be a debate but something is causing these issues.
The valve train aside from AFM is a nightmare. This build will not withstand high mileage. I have yet to see even one of these motors push past 200k. 3 phase camshaft, no thanks. Its junk!
@@sabastian4858one for sale near me with 180k on the clock and nothing but oil, tires and brakes on the service history. I see a few listed over 200k miles, but it’s only been out since 2019 and I don’t see many 200k 5.3s from 2019+ either.
Guess I’ll stick with my ‘00 GMC 1500 Z71 with 180,000 mi. I know of some with 3 and 4 hundred thousand with no engine issues. Of course they’re dinosaurs compared to new stuff
@@marky.bear92 I don’t know your budget but if you look around at some dealerships you can get a brand new truck for around that. I bought 2024 with 6 miles of the lot tax and license fee’s for 42k
I owned the original 2.7T in a 2019 Silverado for 3 years (LT package but used for work truck). I put 147,000 miles on it and it ran exceptionally great. No issues at all. Literally changed the oil every 7,000 miles and that’s it. Maybe it’s because I put the miles on so quickly but I was impressed with this engine. The 8 speed not so much, therefore I now have the 10 speed with the 5.3 👍
@@brianonthego it’s nearly identical to the 2.7 in my experience. Both trucks had/have a leveling kit and 275/70/17 tires. Overall average is 19-20. You can easily get 23-25 on the highway but it does drop down to 15-16 sometimes in the city. It’s truly impressive between 35-65 mph but above that it takes a dive. 49K on it right now and not a single issue.
I appreciate the comments made in the video. These primarily sound like concerns you have with architecture being used rather than empirical issues specific to this engine.
The 8.1l engine was great for its time. The new 6.6L gas HD engine actually makes more horsepower and torque than the 8.1L while getting significantly better mpg while doing it.
As other commenters have mentioned, there are quite a few videos interviewing the engineers…one thing they discussed was the active fuel management system. I agree that GM’s previous AFM system was trash, but they also stated that they moved away from the hydraulic system in this motor and moved to an electric system instead, supposedly eliminating the lifter/valve issues seen in the hydraulic system. I would be very curious to hear your take on that system! Thanks as always for another excellent video!
The actual head engineer that helped developed this engine says that this motor was designed to run on 87 octane and not premium. In this day and age I still can't believe the amount of people that still believe running higher than recommended octane in your car or truck will increase performance or gas mileage. If it's designed to run on 87 you're gaining nothing by running premium. 🤦
It is my understanding that many engines retard/advance timing based on the knock sensor feedback. Octane should allow more advanced timing, leading to more HP. What am I missing?? @@randolfo1265
A 3.5L inline six would be nice. Basically a modernized 216 ci. that was used successfully for decades. Well balanced and tough, a good platform to build on.
I get 18ish around town (casual) driving and 24mpg when I took a road trip (all highway) the end of last year. The 2.7HO is one of my favorite engines and I got it "kicking and screaming". It was a budget decision and it has been great after a year. Even better than my previous 3- 5.3's!
This gives me a little hope. I *just* bought a Colorado Z71 in part due to the same reasons and I noticed about 16.5mpg all highway on the way home from the dealer. Plan on towing landscape stuff for short distances regularly.. I sure hope that MPG improves and this motor doesn't explode itself as she breaks in.. I'm very concerned as to the direction of todays's autos, these days we are kind of stuck on small turbo motors unless you bump up to full size which largely is more inconvenient for most people. Unfortunately, manufacturers are going the "tech+small engine" route for the foreseeable future so you're kind of screwed with that either side of the brand coin one chooses.
A lot of people on here crying about the old days of truck engines, and how concerned they are about having a 4 cylinder in a full-size truck. The reality is that ALL engines, big or small, regardless of application, have issues. Some more than others, but issues none the less. Yet somehow every brand loyalist, self proclaimed expert, and insecure large displacement bubba, has their concerns about anything new or smaller than 5 litres. Well, the old days are gone. Nobody asked for the 2.7, but we got it, and it seems to perform. Some people have had issues, others have had none. It’s new and only time will tell. We all miss the good old days of reliable, large displacement motors that are easy to work on and maintain, but that is the past, not the future. The world is changing. Forward thinking is the only path forward. Get on board or sit back and sulk about what was.
Very informative video sir! I bought my 2019 Silverado 2.7 in December of same year. I got a screamin deal, (probably because a lot of people were scared of it! 😮) so I purchased an extended warranty. The most heavy thing I tow is my motorcycle. So far at about 44,000 miles it has been good.
I gotta say this. I bought one of these a few years ago. It has been great. I was very skeptical and thought it would be a quick trade in. I’ve been driving tacomas for years and planned on getting another one. I rolled the dice on the Silverado 4x4 2.7L. 52k miles later and I’m still averaging 19-21 MPG in town and 24MPG on the HWY with long interstate trips giving me 25-26 MPG on 87 octane fuel. I put some premium stuff in every now and then if the price is low, which is almost never. I also change the oil every 3,500 miles with cheap 5W 30 dexos oil. I do this because you have to keep an eye on oil levels in these Chevy’s that have cylinder cut offs. My only problem have been I wish it had the smother 10 speed transmission and I wish it sounded like a V8. Hell I don’t even care about the sound anymore. I will probably trade it in a few more years just because that’s what I do. If they still have this engine in a few more years and it continues to hold up I would get it again. At this point I worry more about the transmission than the engine, but it’s doing fine as it is, just wish it was smoother.
@@carlcampbell6827 I love the tacomas. Always have. They are solid, but with how much the price has gone up on them versus the smaller size and capacity it’s just hard to justify getting one now. As far as the new tundras I don’t know. They are expensive and I just really like the previous model design over what they have now. I got a good deal on my Chevy Silverado, but the prices have gone up a good deal on them now as well. I do have a friend who has a 2022 Tundra and out the door his was 70K. He does like it though, but mine was 32K out the door when I bought my 2.7L Silverado.
They've gotten better with the 10 speed programming but it's taken so much time. Sseems like they added tons more gears without the code to use them correctly. My sister has the v6 atlas with a vw 10 speed and in normal mode it's always searching at low speeds. Seems fine in sport mode.
The injector on my 2022 Silverado failed at 14k miles in the middle of nowhere TX. 40 days later GM is still working to get the truck up and running. The current GM tech recommendation to the dealer working on this is to circumvent the wiring harness and plug directly into the ECM - quality build...
I’m gonna be honest you’re gonna get those issues with any newer vehicle. Hondas and Toyotas are almost always considered to be the most reliable cars on the road but the amount of them we get in the shop because of computer related issues are unreal. Things these days are getting far too complicated so the suburban white women can sit up high and still have all her luxury gadgets
@@davidbegaye6277 So it actually took GM 3 months to finally figure out all the issues and 'fix' the truck - multiple rusted electrical connectors installed at the factory. Basically replaced almost every wiring harness. They had to fly in multiple techs to address it over that 3 month period. It sat in my driveway another 3 months waiting for the TX lemon law to finalize before I went with the Ridgeline - which has had no problems and meets all my needs as a handyman. GM was completely and totally unconcerned that the truck was unsafe from the factory and fought me tooth and nail on the rental car expense - which was a micro sized Chevy Sonic... I would never put anyone I care about in a GM after my dealings with the corporate office. The only good thing I can say is that the GM technicians were disgusted about what they found under the hood and were completely honest about what they found as part of the lemon law discovery sessions.
Had four 5.3's in 1500's over the years. They were fine. Finding a tech even at the dealer that will be able to troubleshoot the 2.7 would be a worry. My 5.3's always got 16+ mpg and didn't shutdown any cylinders. My brother took his High Country with the 6.2 on vacation and said he got 26 mpg on the highway. Heck, even my 2011 vette gets 26 mpg on the highway.
Thank you for the excellent video and analysis. It was very educational. 2.7 will need some time before we can really make a conclusion as to whether it's a good engine or not. It seems like it might be more suited to the suv/mid-size truck models. I always wondered why GM wouldn't have tried to make their historic 4.3 V6 into a turbo engine. I think that would have been more readily accepted by the public.
No 4.3 due to emissions. Same goes for the 4.0 AMC/Jeep straight 6. Same reason why this turbo 4 exists, emissions. The government ruins most everything.
@@bannedbycommieyoutube5time920 Have you ever been to Bangkok? Thailand has little to no emissions standards and the air quality is horrendous. With that being said, I don't agree with everything the government is doing in regards to air pollution, but we need to find a balance between emissions standards and practicality.
@@SD-pi9co just like everything else, common sense tells us some regulations are necessary. US air quality was mostly cleaned up by the early 90’s. At a certain point, you get diminishing returns, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The engines I mentioned were not creating anything remotely close to 1960’s urban air or current air quality in Bangkok. From a practical perspective, the air quality was fine when these engines were in place. Another item is diesel engines, which have unreliable emissions equipment including DEF, EGRs that increase EGTs, among other systems that are horrifically expensive to fix. Most people don’t care, but they don’t realize EVERYTHING gets moved by diesel trucks in the US. When diesel trucks don’t last as long and have far more expensive and frequent maintenance/repairs, the cost of EVERYTHING goes up as a result.
@11:38 the lifter issue you describe is lifter delamination that occurs in pushrod engines but this engine isn't a pushrod and it doesn't have lifters, it's dual overhead cam.
@@GettysGarage maybe you're right, you know more about engines than i do since you are an actual mechanic. I just know that class action lawsuit doesn't include the L3B engine and it's been around for 4-5 years now. By the way i love watching your content. No bullshit, no bias, just the good/bad and great info.
It’s a slider assembly on the camshaft that slides the cam follower from low lift (max fuel economy) to med lift to high lift (max power). No AFM lifters to fail as in a pushrod engine.
What blows me away about most GDI engines these days is how few of them have gone with dual injection to clean the intake tract. Ford seems to be one of the few to do this - like on my '19 F150 2.7L. I'll probably go 3x further before having to consider walnut blasting.
@@IVloses Oil in the intake isn’t the only problem, it’s the lack of cleaning action from moving the fuel injector post intake valve. 1. Even a good oil separator doesn’t remove *all* oil vapor/droplets from the intake tract and carbon deposits come from open valve reversion, valve stem seal/guide leakage *and* PCV oil deposits. Split port injection is the only sure fire way to eliminate carbon building on the intake valve with GDI. The other band aids aren’t true solutions
@@IVloses I also installed a can on my wife's Palisade with GDI, and it does a great job of removing lots of gnarly crud from the intake system, but like our friend "B C" comments here, I know this is only an aid, not a cure.
Anecdotal but here’s my feedback after owning it for two years. It’s been nothing but reliable and I like the way it drives better than the other engines as well. I live in colorado and regularly drive it at freeway speeds at high elevation with dirt bikes, mountain bikes, kayaks, landscaping material and equipment, etc. I don’t tow boats or heavy trailers, neither do most truck owners. For the average full size truck driver that wants a large cab and a good sized bed, it’s a great truck. Go buy your diesel if you tow boats up mountains. Or if you just drive it to work and your kids soccer practice, but you want to pretend you tow a lot. For the rest, this seems like a great truck so far. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong in the future. We’ll see, but after two years of owning it I couldn’t be happier.
The AFM lifter failure is only with the OHV engines. This OHC system doesn't use the lifters to deactivate the cylinders it uses the third step on the 3-step sliding cam. On cylinders 2 and 4 there are no lobes on the camshaft for the third cam profile so the valves aren't activated.
Have you known anyone to have a failure of the AFM with this particular engine? If so, how many? I'm well aware of the lifter failures with other Chevy engines. What's the cost to fix any failures related to this specific AFM implementation with this Chevy 2.7L turbo engine?
@@thomasjburton I don't think so, I've been watching a lot of owner reviews of the turbomax engine and there doesn't seem to be many problems with it, no AFM failures that I've found.
@PlayWaves1 I appreciate your reply. The dealership service rep that I bought my truck from only had one cam replacement needed that he was aware of with the 2.7L Chevy engine in about the year and a half that the person I talked to at the time mentioned. I'm planning on following up to get more details about that particular scenario in terms of how well taken care of that truck was, etc. I'll post here again once I get that Intel.
I just purchased a 2024 GMC truck with 2.7 turbo I think I will get over 200k they make great trucks, my last two GMC trucks I got over 200k miles they had the V8 I’m staying positive on this engine.
i'm worried that all that tech will need a lot of repairs throughout the years. knowing how much the turbos depend on clean oil, i would get oil changes more often than suggested
Im driving one of these right now it a Chevy. I gotta say I love it so far. I have always had a 5.3 but this had a sweet lease on it. I have pulled the goose decoy trailer I use for goose hunting it a tandem cargo trailer with shelves and a ton of decoys and blinds absolutely no problem at all.
Another great review. I had 100k before trading it in. I found the truck to be very light and didn't have balls when passing semi trucks. But it passed all the work tasks.
Theres talk that they are going to change the warranty on the 2.7 to 100k based on how successful its been in having very few issues .Also because of peoples hesitation
Ford's 4 cylinder ecoboost engines aren't the best, but the v6 ecoboosts have proven themselves to be long-lasting when you dont neglect oil changes. I've seen dozens of 3.5 ecoboost f150s with over 250k miles. Ford's v6 ecoboosts have forged internals, hypereutetic pistons, 6-bolt mains, and beefy piston rings. If GM built their 2.7 to similar durability standards, it should be able to go 250k+ miles with proper maintenance. Turbos and smaller displacement do not automatically mean poor longevity. It's all about how the engine was built. Diesels run higher compression and 10-20psi more boost.
Did you check the emissions output comparing it to a v8. This engine produces less emissions than a v8 burning the same amount of fuel. It is why many companies are switching to small displacement turbo engines.
Agreed! It’s a great video and explains the technology and the incredible reliability of this motor. It sure looks like most commenters to this video have not watched the video.
The 3.0 diesel is the only way to go in these trucks and IMO is by far the best value. Inherently balanced, gobs of low end torque, and mine gets 23+mpg city and 30mpg hwy. It also will tow 13k.
GM engineers say the truck engine is absolutely tuned for 87 and you are just wasting money on premium fuel. Check out truck and SUV talk , they had engineer on live talking about this.
I bought my 22 silverado last year 2023 wit 16 miles on it. At the moment I got 4k miles on it, fun to drive, saw it has a plastic-ish oil pan drain bolt and realized the oil pan was plastic-ish. Also has a oil and trans cooler, so good coolant level maintenance is a thing to keep in mind imho. Still love it.
Alex ,I'm a Ford guy,and I've owned several high mileage Ecoboost engines.I will never ever go back to a v8.If I was buying GM I'd select this engine.The 5.3 has not been without problems if you look you will find them.I know many that have this engine and are more than happy with it.Pulls incredibly well.Im also looking forward to Ram's new Hurricane turbo engine.Run Supreme fuel,use synthetic oil and change it well before the oil life monitor tells you, and an occasional wide open Throttle, and any turbo engine will reward you with many miles
The 5.3 is extremely famous for a reason, and swapped into everything made. Only consistent problem I've seen is those crappy intakes, 250 bucks if you DIY the repair.
@@wymple09you are referring to the LS/ vortec variant of the 5.3 which were amazing. The LT variant of the 5.3 which has been around over a decade is a massive turd with lots of problems.
I did a road trip rental with a 2022 2.7L 1500. Liked the truck a lot. 18MPG going very easy on smooth roads 45-55 backroads and 65mph highway. Never exceeded the speed limit. Truck returned 19MPG with a tank of 93 octane, on the way back. Which was also downhill a bit (not much more than 1000 feet) back to sea level. Drove in some light snow, no issues what so ever.
Great video Alex - man, you nailed it when you said there are a lot of complex systems and active components that have the potential to breakdown - hopefully GM can iron out the failures/issues in what I think is pretty neat technology - You’re back in ON again?! Welcome, thanks and cheers
For those who are unaware- the new Canyons and Colorados are now equipped with the 2.7l turbo four. The 3.6l V6 and 2.8 Duramax diesel have sadly both been retired, so it’s the only engine available but it comes in different states of tune. It seems like a good fit for the mid-size trucks with a better power to weight ratio than in the full size trucks. But, in my opinion the 3.6l was a great fit too, fairly bullet proof, plenty of power and the fuel economy was nearly identical to what these new four bangers are getting. I’m just guessing but maybe GM wanted to advance the technology and increase low end torque? But it’s just not really an efficient power plant either so it remains a mystery why THIS is the future?
The 2019 2.7 sliverado pickup I had avg'd a hand calculated 24mpg per tank. Other then a diesel with Def, there really isn't a a better mpg out of any of these newer powertrains. I can only hope a colorado/canyon would be more efficient.
It only comes in different power levels(3 of them) in the 2023 colorado. The 2023 canyon only gets the full power 310hp 430 torque version of the 2.7T.
Thank you sir for pointing out past flaws, along with the innovations. That sort of insight is sorely lacking on most other reviews of the 2.7. An engine that I doubt will still be running and driving in fifteen years like we expect the V8’s to be.
@@5zwoodworks Been a professional mechanic since 1987 and counting. My past experience with small displacement, GM, turbo, gasoline engines, ain’t one of high opinion. So, taking that experience, I base my opinion of future small displacement, GM, turbo, gasoline engines
@@andysteward8617Exactly. I wouldn’t touch a modern engine. I’ll suffer the low gas mileage and lack of power for longevity and cost of maintenance any day.
At 10k miles on my 2023, dealership has seen it more of its life than I have so far. It’s driving mostly ok as of now, just a small coolant leak somewhere around the radiator but have had the entire fuel system replaced including high pressure fuel pump and a total of 9 ECM replacements. Next time it breaks down it falls under the lemon law, fingers crossed.
Love this engine.. the sound and the torque. I love 4 cyl turbos though. I got surprisingly good fuel economy versus the v8 I rented and it felt faster off the line. But you’re right it is a complex and new engine. I bet gm will make it great over the next couple of generations.
@@fabbritechnology Don't you know YT commenters know everything and are the best mechanics? I'm sure many of them have at least 3 years of experience turning wrenches. There's no chance their comments are a result of insecure man-boy knee jerk reactions to - gasp - a smaller but highly capable engine. Most have probably never seen a 4 barrel carb and wouldn't remember how every mechanic said fuel injection will never last.
What do you mean it’s not common for Turbo Gas engines to produce torque like that? The 3.5L EcoBoost makes 420 of its 470lb-ft rating (90%-ish) at around 2500 rpm. Which is not very far off this 1800-1900rpm feat of this 2.7L 4 Popper. The 3.0L EcoBoost reaches 400lb-ft (90% - ish) @ around 1400rpm, and makes 440 around 1800rpm. Which is actually better than both aforementioned engines. The 2.7L EcoBoost makes 350lb-ft (90%-ish) around 2700 rpm but actually makes torque FASTER than the 3.5L at lower rpm having roughly 125% more torque than its big brother 3.5L @ the same 2100rpm. Either way that’s three engine examples that out achieve VERY similar to the 90% torque at 1800-1900rpm achievement that this 4 cylinder boasts. Granted lol yes they are all 3 FORD engines… 🤷🏼♂️ Now some BMW higher revving Turbo I6 or Twin Turbo V8’s they show curves around 4000-6000 rpm’s for peak torque values. But I think that this achievement is more common that it is rare. I mean am I missing something ? Maybe I’m a total idiot and don’t know what I’m talking about lol 😂 I’m LOVE the channel but that little fact threw me as odd? I feel like that pertains to older Turbo Gassers.
@@GettysGarage You think if fuel efficiency improved by some 20% then all that tech would be justified? If hybrids didn't improve MPGs, nobody would want complexity I'm assuming.
If most viewers ACTUALLY understood how this 2.7 was designed and created, there would be no doubt to its durability and longevity. External waterpump, beefed up internals, stronger block, cooling of turbo independent of engine Temps, etc. This is a very well-thoughtout engine. You also talk about direct injection which you know is not exclusive to this engine. I believe it's a moot point because it makes it seem like the 2.7 will suffer failure because of a universal fuel delivery designed used in 100's of engines.
@@rolandthethompsongunner64 Yeah I said the same thing till I realized Audi does the same thing with their 3.0t very solid motor and the only issue was the “slide points” because I don’t remember what they were were getting beat up and failing because they were too narrow they widened them out to distribute the force better and there hasn’t been issues since. The only thing that worries me is having 3 cam profiles that the engine can switch between actively.
@@ruffxm I got a screaming deal on my 2023 that I love at two years now. The reason, the big "boys" in Bend, OR wouldn't touch anything but V8's. I got $5K off of list plus a $1.5K discount because of the 2.7L. The dealer had a lot of these trucks and was sold out of the V8 version, but if they had any they were marking them up $10K over list!!!!
the MPG dropped with the HO 2.7L. the 350 ft pounds on 2020 with an upgraded air filter/plenum boosts very nicely. I run 87 with lucas fuel cleaner in every tank since new and the motor purrrs. usually 19mpg at 82mph cruise. mine is 4wd, 19 2wd mode, 18mpg AWD mode. it picks up and moves, no performance issues - had it 60k miles and I love it. also has airflow shutters on the low-mounted-on-its-own intercooler (the bottom grill). Only downside is going offroad in florida if swampy water - will submerge lower intercooler shutter system in sandy water, so Ive not used it less than I would have used a 5.3 offroad. around town MPG is more like 21mpg. 2020 model is 87 octane.
@@thomasmcghee2468 Absolutely...you're dealing with semi-neanderthals who are programmed as "V8 is manly and anything less is not manly". Explaining the science behind it is useless.
I have this engine in my 2023. I have the Sierra 1500 Pro WT. Its a singlecab, 4x4, white, steel wheels, vinyl floors etc. The only upgrade option is chrome bumpers.
Yeah, it's a 166 cubic inch beast. My guess is if you actually try to tow anywhere near 9000 pounds with this engine on a regular basis, it will be on the scrap heap at 60K to 80K miles.
Owner since 2020 towing 6,800 total payload including passengers. This truck is a absolutely flawless 3 years this month April 22. I have towed now 23K miles and in mountain country out West. I have yet to have an issue. I owned the 5.3 2019 Silverado. Was OK but lower performance then my current 2.7L T. And my fuel milage is better even while towing. My low end torque is masterful in grades! If I had to tow 9K lbs due to work /continually very likely I'd be in a 3/4 ton anyway.
My powerboost gets about 11 - 11.8 l/100 in city and between 9 - 10.2 l/100 on the highway. 2021 f150 long box crew cab lariat high on 35" x 11.50 wildpeaks. I lost a bit with the AT tires, but its still better than any truck i've had in the past.
Got a great deal on a 23 Chevy 4x4 with this engine. Initially apprehensive, I was impressed with how easily this engine drives un-trailered. With a 12' work trailer that weighs ~3k lbs, it requires more pedal to get moving than my previous 5.3 did. After a week, the (memory of the) difference faded away. This much tech (and the price to fix it) is why I thought an extended warranty would be a good idea...and ive never been an extended warranty kinda guy. So far, with 2500 miles, my avg fuel mileage (according to the truck which is within .2 mpg of manual calculation when i checked) is just over 17 mpg. That's with city trailer towing, new truck idling while playing with gadgets inside, and a 1200 mi road trip with 78 mph speeds. -23 Crew cab, 6.5' bed 4x4 is getting better combined mileage than my '17 regular cab long bed 2wd 5.3 truck (the '17 truck was usually 2 mpg off of actual mpg) Only issues: transmission sometimes clunks down to first gear only after hitting the gas from a stop. The audio (both fm radio and from audio book from phone) has stopped working 4 or 5 times. A restart of the truck fixed it.
Great analysis on the L3B. I've been considering a new Colorado or Canyon and have had some serious questions about this engine. This is going to be a retirement truck for me, so I'm looking for something reliable. I love the styling on the new Chev / GM mid-size pickups, but this complex new turbo 4 banger is giving me the willy's!! Thanks for the honest answers and opinion!!
I like my 2015 have had it 8 years. But I'm very skeptical of the new models Esp. because of the new 4 cylinder.2.7 I will have to see how this new model pans out. (the new Canyon) You can only get it in 4 cyl.Turbo. Don't like that!! Too new. $40K - 65K (TOO MUCH)
I went from a 2015 gmc 5.3 to the turbo mine is a 22 Chevy 1500. So far no problems at 15000 km. Wish me luck. PS 18 MPG average according to the computer. 🇨🇦
I have a 2020 Silverado with this engine in it and so far I like it a lot for it being a 4-cylinder in a big truck. I have had issues with mine but it has all been failing sensors and other plastic computer junk which have been replaced for free under warranty. I haven't had any mechanical issues so far, but there also isn't much mileage on it due to it being a lease vehicle. When I first got it in August of 2020 I was originally running high-octane gas in it as the norm up until the gas prices skyrocketed. Now I just run normal 87 and top up the tank every Friday so I don't have to buy as much. I'm sure adding an octane booster into the tank would help for less than buying high-test fuel. As for engine longevity I do my best to buy the best engine oil I can get my hands on. Since my mileage is extremely low I'm only on my second oil change. The first oil change was done at the dealer to take advantage of a free oil change. But when it came time to do a second oil change I was happy because the ACDelco oil they use is crap. The engine felt like it didn't rev clean when I was driving around. With the second oil change I bought some full synthetic STP and it runs much smoother than it did with the ACDelco junk in it. When the third oil change comes around I'll be switching back over to the Royal Purple I've been running in my previous truck. From what I read on RP's website the stuff I was previously running is formulated for newer aged vehicles as wall as those with turbo's. So that might help with longevity. As for current gen 5.3's I will have to disagree with them being good engines. Which hurts me to say as the 5.3 is one of my fave GM engines besides the 327. The 3rd Gen 5.3 out of my previous 2004 Silverado was a great engine with minimal problems. After 2005 when they started going ham with the AFM rubbish the 5.3 stopped being good in a stock config.
You really don’t want to switch different oils like, or change to different octanes. Pick one and stick too it. I would just run 87 in it, and out additive every 7500.
@@calebniederhofer6529 If it was ran for 100K miles on nothing but conventional oil then switching oils would be a no no due to worn seals and what not. But since it has less than 15K miles on it and nothing but synthetic gets ran in it switching oil isn't going to bother it. Especially since you can't control what a dealership puts in it when a family member tells you to take advantage of a first free oil change. And to be honest it's a modern turbo'd engine with tighter tolerances so it shouldn't even have conventional ran in it in the first place. I run AmsOil and Royal Purple in my vehicles, if I run anything else it's because I don't have the money for my normal choices at the time and I get the next best thing that isn't as costly. Switching oil is better than no oil changes at all. So far it has only had two oil changes done to it and the third is coming up soon so it's getting Royal Purple this time around and will continue to get it there after.
I think that a lot of the carbon build up on the lifter can be prehipped with an oil cat can because all that high pressure from the cylinder will be push down between the piston and the cylinder and being transfert to the intake system with a connected overpressure hose to lean out the pressur in the crankcase
It’s not built for fuel economy it’s built to meet emissions, same story with the Hurricane I6 phasing out the Hemi. There’s a lot of tech in that engine to squeeze all that output, it might hurt longterm longevity.
It is all about economy and power. Nobody could compete with the Ecoboost motors. The manufactures made fun of Ford for doing that, and going to aluminum, everyone is starting to follow that route, including Toyota. The N/A v8 motors can’t compete powerwise, and the torque curves, economy.
@@vr4787 Marketing ploy? It is better for consumers honestly. I drive a Ford 2.7 and still think that is the best motor, for anyone not towing over about 6k. I am a big EB guy, but that is because I Believe Ford is putting out the best, and most reliable turbo charged motors in trucks.
@@calebniederhofer6529I really don’t see how having to pay for high octane fuel for peak performance on a direct injection engine that’s prone to carbon build up, with GM’s issue laden AFM/DFM sytem that gets marginally better mpg than a 5.7 hemi like the video pointed out (which is less complex and more affordable to mod/repair) is better for consumers. If you think Ford ecoboosts are reliable they have their share issues especially with cam phasers waring out and turbos leaking as they age. It’s not a simple or cheap repair either. Squeezing all that power out of a smaller displacement gas engine comes at a cost.
My pickup is not a 4x4. Of course the engine us installed logitudinally! Horizontal orientation is for FWD automobiles. I suppose you could do it in a pickup, but why would you? Pickups with 2WD are RWD.
I have a 2022 GMC 3500. With a 6.6. Welder , 100 gal fuel tank and big tool box in the back all the time and I’m getting 16 mpg and never on a highway. All secondary roads. I love it…….. so far. Only have 15 k on it.
I Just got a back order new 2023 gmc canyon at4x load with 2.7 turbo motor i am impressed with the motor i also have been a chey guy big motors all my life i love 8 cylinders motor but wow to this motor i am impressed for a 4 cylinder motor let she how she does in the coming years. thank you for your review
Your definatly right about the tech breaking down. As a GM tech i run a 99 k2500 hd with a 454 gets 14 to 15 hiway on reg fuel. Hp and tourqe numbers between that 2.7 and my 7.4 are near equal but im quite sure that truck wont outpull my 454 and cant get that 2.7 in a 2500 hd so id say GM doesnt think so either. All that technology nothing but headaches that means countless days at dealer for repair and be driving some chevy malabu loaner yippi...ya thanks but no thanks GM
those GMT400 trucks are worth their weight in gold! I used to own a 96 k1500 Z71 with the 350. best truck I ever owned should of never sold it. I appreciate GM trying to move the needle but it's not something I would personally want to own in a pick up truck.
Probably the biggest reason why GM doesn’t throw it in their HD trucks is because HD trucks don’t have to meet MPG and emissions goals since they’re unrated. That’s why you have a 6.6 gasser that was mated to a 6l90. Now their 1500s aren’t HD classified and therefor do have to be EPA certified and that’s a major reason why they shoved this engine in it.
@@GettysGarage Those 96 Z71s were nice; would be worth refurbishing. Hell I am still kicking myself for letting go of my 71 Ford F250 heavy duty Camper Special with 360ci.
This active fuel management on the 2.7 isn’t as present only under very very light loads or low speeds. For most part these 22+ 2.7 in my experience having 23 canyon with 2.7. It doesn’t really go into “eco” mode is what is called not AFM. Now DI, your worries can be solved with simple methods . Such as running additives depending on how often vehicle is used.
I have a couple of 2022 GMC 2.7 pickups. 17 mpg city 19 hiway which is Bout 2 mpg better than a 5.3 GMC I have. My 5.7 2019 Ram gets a little better than my 5.3 but not as good of gas mileage as the 2.7. The 2.7 will hold 80 mph at 2000 rpm over mountain passes and never has to downshift due to the massive low range torque. Very smooth power plant that is pretty quick. Crazy that it has more torque than my 6.4 Power Wagon.
I ran both 87 and 93 octane. There was no difference in mileage. I drive it lightly and I have tried to make it better mileage than the 2015 2500 Duramax I had prior to this 2020 2.7. Plus my 2.7 likes oil. 2 litres between oil changes.
I have a 2009 Silverado 5.3 with 243000 miles on it. I've replaced one ignition coil and that's it. I pull two different boats with it pretty often, and it feels like it hasn't lost any power. It's really been a good one! And it's showing 17.4 overall miles per gallon.
Great Information. This engine is better suited for GMs midsize suv lineup not a half ton pickup truck. With the cylinder deactivation/ fuel management, history is destined to repeat itself for those old enough to remember Cadillacs 4*6*8* engine.
Ok I just bought a 2023 crew cab 4x4 with the 2.7 turbo it out pulls a 5.3 Hands Down I should know I’ve owned a new Chevrolet truck every 2 years since 1994 had them all 350 tbi 454 tbi 350 vortec 454 vortec 5.3 since 99 I promise you drive one and you’ll change your tune Immediately I couldn’t be more impressed and at 77/78 mph I got 29mpg I use 93 octane Only Insane to me
What concerns me is that you stated that it has a 9,000 lbs or so towing package. So when do you think that this package will get out of boost doing that, I think maybe going down hill, can't wait to see the uninformed be shocked that it doesn't get 17 MPG. Seems far too complex for what it is, a lot of potential for engine issues and yes, put me down for a large displacement engine turning low rpm's to last a lot longer, just my two cents.
I heard GM’s new tech involves 1 cylinder and cutting holes in the floorboards. You and your buddies can help move it along with your feet. It’s called the Flintstone engine.
The reason they are using a 4 cylinder instead of a 6 is material cost savings. There are engineers that spend all there time reducing material. They study making every screw one thread shorter. Or like the ignition locking pin that went horribly wrong when they shaved 1/4 mm. Anyone remember car’s shutting off and causing accidents? GM’s fix, don’t put anything extra on your key chain. So imagine the lustful excitement when they get to get rid of 2 cylinders and blame it on epa smog regulations.
What new truck engines are NOT port injected nowadays. On my 2019 6.4 Dodge Hemi Challenger, I installed a Catch Can and drain out a couple of ounces of oil every 2 or 3 thousand miles. (On my 6.4 Challenger, I get 22-26 MPG turning only 2000 RPM at 80 MPH.)
This never gets mentioned, but this engine was designed by GM to replace their 4.3 v6 base engine, not their v8's. It destroys the 4.3 in every metric. The fact that you compared it over and over to v8's shows how impressive this engine actually is. Compared to the 5.3, it's cheaper to build, weighs less (more payload!), tows almost as much, and feels much stronger in day to day driving due to that low end torque. It also gets better city MPG, but yeah on the highway n/a v8's can still do quite well especially when they start dropping cylinders (mds/afm/dfm).
Fair point. the reason I guess I compared it to the V8 is because it's the other gas engine option. I felt like that's what most people are going to be interested about. whether to settle with the 4 cylinder or step up the v8. the tech itself is actually a little wild, but it does just concern me about longevity and reliability. but only time will tell!
That's a good point. I think this platform is decent for those that care about mpg. Maybe better suited in a midsized or suv. What kills me is the AFM. Why the AFM? Its a ticking time bomb, it will cause engine failure. Believe me. Just spent a month this past summer removing my 5.3 l83 out of my Silverado due to lifter failure right at the 100k mark. Ended up fully deleting the afm with a texas speed delete kit with a stage 1 cam and ls7 lifters and a handful of other odds and ends while I was there. What's interesting to me is mpg with afm was at best 19mpg highway. After I deleted the afm I now get 21.5mpg. So why afm? If a better cam and lifters can achieve those results? I'm fortunate to have mechanical ability, tools, shop etc to fix most anything. But the average guy better stay in warranty. Or have deep pockets.
Note on displacement theory. GM could be thinking about export market. Some market tax is based on displacement. Usually 3.0 is considered a new tax bracket.
I can see a lot going wrong with this engine. Maybe not while in warranty but probably around the 60-70 mile range especially if the owner has been pulling things such as a pontoon,heavy trailer etc. wouldn’t buy one. First thing is change the chip out so it won’t drop any cylinders you may get a few more miles out of it.
Was in the market for a truck back in the fall…looked at full size and all they would have on the lots were these “4 bangers” as my dad lovingly refers to a 4 cylinder…so I started to think about a canyon but 2023 they don’t offer the 6 anymore only this 4 cylinder as well…so I went used 2020 and this video just solidifies my decision to not get one with the 4 banger in it!!
I have a 2019 F150 with the twin turbo 2.7 V6 and 10 speed auto and it’s EPA rating is 26 highway and 20 in town and I regularly get 21-22.5 mpg in town and 24 on the highway at 70 mph. I have achieved the 26 mpg several times but it requires perfect weather and flat roads. I’m currently at 112,000 miles and I purchased it new. I have not had one single issue and have done all recommended maintenance. This is the only 2.7 I would ever buy.
I’ve had my GMC 2.7 for 2 years now. I only put Ethanal Free gasoline in it mostly 91 octane but will use 88. I get 26 mpg Hwy and 21 mpg City with a max record of 29mpg (50 mile avg). I get 10-12 mpg towing a 7,000lb rv at 65 mph.
I had a 2001 Silverado with the 4.8. It only had a 5 speed with 270hp and 285 ft lbs. The 5.3 was only 285 and 325 with a 4 speed. Those numbers were at 5200 and 4000 RPM. Trucks have come a long way. While a 4 banger doesn’t sound ideal in a truck, its probably not as bad as people think it is once you look at the whole package.
@@pcmountaindog Perfect example. Aircraft used to have four engines. The FAA mandated aircraft have three engines up until the DC-10 and 727. Now most aircraft you fly in, like the 737 have only two engines. Because……the newer engines are more reliable and produce more power, and can sustain bigger aircraft. Along with being more efficient. So would you rather fly in a 707? Or a 737-8?
Alex - get a new 22+ Tundra and review it - please! The new 3.5 TT engine…I feel won’t live up to the legendary benchmark of the 4.7 and 5.7 v8’s! I’ve got 300k on my old 2008 Tundra 5.7 and nothing ever goes wrong with that damn thing, nothing! It’s like a cockroach…can’t kill it lol. Best vehicle I’ve ever owned - period. (…and I’ve had gm/ford/dodge gas jobs too). Also have two newer diesels…an LML dmax and a 1st gen 6.7 PS. The Ford 6.7 is a maintenance nightmare…the kind that makes you piss the bed. Lol
Don't forget the Tundra 4.6L V8 that replaced the 4.7L. It's even better than the 4.7 in my opinion. My 2013 has the 4.6L and it is simply a great engine. Hauls around our small to medium trailers (fishing boat and enclosed trailers) easily as well as our slide-in pop-up pickup camper. Runs about one gear lower than 5.7liter would pulling the same loads so I get the same mpg as a 5.7L when towing, but when running empty, I get 18 - 20mpg on the highway (hand calculated on 300+ mile trips) depending on if I drive 80mph or 70mph (80mph speed limits here).
Not sure if you read thru the comments but there are a couple of post of owners with 100k plus who haven’t had any issues, the 2.7 has been solid there’s just tons of bias with it being a 4cyl
Can't speak for this engine but with my 2013 f150 ecoboost when I put my tuner i was actually surprised how little it was actually under boost while cruising down the highway most of the time on flat roads its around 3 to 5 psi vacuum and all but one steep hill very rarely goes over 4 psi of boost
Check out me towing 8,000lbs through the Appalachian mountains with this BEAST - ua-cam.com/video/xbcvOhSSGmk/v-deo.html
My 2021 Silverado has the 2.7 turbo. I've had no problems. I was able to get the regular cab with a long box for $37K brand new from a dealership. It's my first new truck and also my first full sized truck.
you havent had it long enough, they generraly go out at 100,00 miles i work for bakersville chevy and i see em all day long!
Over 50,000 miles still no problems. 1 year.
@@moveitback1sure you do…..😂😂😂
I have a 2020 f150 2.7l v6
What gas are you using?
GM should build an inline 6 version of this engine. 400 hp and 600tq on 87 octane mated to a 10 speed would be interesting. Probably not that great of fuel economy though.
probably would have very similar fuel mileage to this engine. but I agree you could make some serious power out of an inline 6.
Now your talking...the 4.3 V6 back in the day was a dandy with a 5 speed manual.
Who cares... Make a true HD gas engine with some actual power and no diesel after treatment. Cummins is for RAM, GM is usually behind on everything.
GM was in fact working on an inline 6 engine family, they recently announced its cancelation. I heard this report on Autoline, an automotive news channel here on UA-cam
@@twotrackjack2260 sadness...
Lifter failures, btw, were only on the 8 cylinder engines with AFM/DFM. No lifter issues with the 2.7 because it uses a different method to control the cylinder deactivations.
OHC engines don't have push rods or lifters. The issue with the AFM on the GM V8s and V6s is primarily due to failed lifters.
Some ohc engines have lifters
Lots of over head cam engines have lifters what is you talking about
I've owned one since 2021 Memorial Day weekend. So far I have 71000+ miles on it and no issues. I generally get over 23mpg with it on the highway and about 20mpg with just regular driving. When I pull my landscape trailer the mileage goes down to about 15 or so. The trailer has a High gate on the back that creates a lot of wind resistance. We'll see how it goes from here!
If you're lucky, the problems may not occur until after 100k
Finally someone puts MPG while pulling something relatable. You my friend win the internet today!!
Damn that's impressive! No problems whatsoever?? I bought a brand 🆕 Tacoma TRD off-road & I had to take it to the dealer because the front diff actuator broke (or never worked) & got stuck in 4X4 & my AC didn't work from the 🏭 factory... i live in PHX so that sucked it was 120° & had to wait a week to get it fixed
@@k.lindsey3529Their are videos out their with over 160k miles, zero issues! 😐
@@honda116969I live in Phoenix also and my 2022 Tacomas ac heater blower fan self destructed and fans blades came off, no AC either and happened in august ,,,,this happened at 500 miles, payed that truck off and traded it for a new Colorado Trail Boss, I love this truck it’s a little beast! I got it calibrated to 430# torque too!
Alex Yes this motor has a lot of Tech in it. But you might want to look at the internals of the L3b before making a blanket statement about AFM lifters failing like the v-8 versions. This engine is DOHC that uses camshaft follower and hydraulic lash adjusters. Nothing in this engine is like the AFM lifters/system in the 5.3/6.2.
I Imagine the AFM is a different set up in this engine based up the 3 phase cam shaft. but a cam followers or a lifter does the same thing more or less. the v8's are all hydraulically adjusted as well. It's no secret that the 4 cylinder engines are having valve train failures. weather it's directly related to the AFM system that could be a debate but something is causing these issues.
The valve train aside from AFM is a nightmare. This build will not withstand high mileage. I have yet to see even one of these motors push past 200k. 3 phase camshaft, no thanks. Its junk!
@@sabastian4858one for sale near me with 180k on the clock and nothing but oil, tires and brakes on the service history. I see a few listed over 200k miles, but it’s only been out since 2019 and I don’t see many 200k 5.3s from 2019+ either.
Guess I’ll stick with my ‘00 GMC 1500 Z71 with 180,000 mi. I know of some with 3 and 4 hundred thousand with no engine issues. Of course they’re dinosaurs compared to new stuff
@@MikeC-g8fI have an 08 with the 4.8....I have 296,000 miles on it
I just bought a '23 Silverado 2.7. It has gobs of torque down low where a truck needs it. It feels very utilitarian, but that's what I wanted.
I just purchased a 2024 with the 2.7 I4 I appreciate the knowledge you was given, I’ll definitely keep you updated on the results as I go
how is it so far? i plan on getting one soon due to affordability out of the rest of the engine selections
@@marky.bear92 so far no complaints I’m at 2400 miles I don’t drive it everyday. Gas mileage is alright, I love hearing the turbo whistling
@@brandonbarbre2glad to hear, i hope to get this truck. Its honestly a steal, its a 2023 with 2k miles for 39k
@@marky.bear92 I don’t know your budget but if you look around at some dealerships you can get a brand new truck for around that. I bought 2024 with 6 miles of the lot tax and license fee’s for 42k
@@marky.bear92I have a 2024 that I've got about 5k on already and I love it .
I owned the original 2.7T in a 2019 Silverado for 3 years (LT package but used for work truck). I put 147,000 miles on it and it ran exceptionally great. No issues at all. Literally changed the oil every 7,000 miles and that’s it. Maybe it’s because I put the miles on so quickly but I was impressed with this engine. The 8 speed not so much, therefore I now have the 10 speed with the 5.3 👍
engine wear and tear is all about the heat cycles. highway driving is better then city driving
Are you getting good fuel numbers with the 5.3? Happy with the 5.3 compared to 2.7?
@@brianonthego it’s nearly identical to the 2.7 in my experience. Both trucks had/have a leveling kit and 275/70/17 tires. Overall average is 19-20. You can easily get 23-25 on the highway but it does drop down to 15-16 sometimes in the city. It’s truly impressive between 35-65 mph but above that it takes a dive. 49K on it right now and not a single issue.
What kind of climate do you live in?
@@phillipcotten4872 What kind of climate do you live in? Turbos where I live usually burn out quickly since we hit temperatures above 120°F
I appreciate the comments made in the video. These primarily sound like concerns you have with architecture being used rather than empirical issues specific to this engine.
I'm rocking the 8.1 in my 05 suburban, I'm at 316k miles and still going strong.
The 8.1l engine was great for its time. The new 6.6L gas HD engine actually makes more horsepower and torque than the 8.1L while getting significantly better mpg while doing it.
As other commenters have mentioned, there are quite a few videos interviewing the engineers…one thing they discussed was the active fuel management system. I agree that GM’s previous AFM system was trash, but they also stated that they moved away from the hydraulic system in this motor and moved to an electric system instead, supposedly eliminating the lifter/valve issues seen in the hydraulic system. I would be very curious to hear your take on that system! Thanks as always for another excellent video!
The actual head engineer that helped developed this engine says that this motor was designed to run on 87 octane and not premium. In this day and age I still can't believe the amount of people that still believe running higher than recommended octane in your car or truck will increase performance or gas mileage. If it's designed to run on 87 you're gaining nothing by running premium. 🤦
Not all engines, but some motors do actually gain performance with higher octane. We had an Acura that plainly stated in the owner's manual that fact.
retired 44 year mechanic
@@mikesamson1930 - Yeah, if it is stated in the owner's manual, then it's real. Otherwise, what the engineers said.
It is my understanding that many engines retard/advance timing based on the knock sensor feedback. Octane should allow more advanced timing, leading to more HP. What am I missing?? @@randolfo1265
There are a number of manufactures that clearly state different outputs depending on octane. Obviously you are ignorant to that fact.
A 3.5L inline six would be nice. Basically a modernized 216 ci. that was used successfully for decades. Well balanced and tough, a good platform to build on.
5 cyl turbo sounds > 4 cyl turbo sounds.
Wasn’t the 4.2 a good motor?
@@captinhoopit is
@@captinhoopVery good, but discontinued due to engine length being a problem in crash tests.
6 Cyl are smooth too.
I get 18ish around town (casual) driving and 24mpg when I took a road trip (all highway) the end of last year. The 2.7HO is one of my favorite engines and I got it "kicking and screaming". It was a budget decision and it has been great after a year. Even better than my previous 3- 5.3's!
This gives me a little hope. I *just* bought a Colorado Z71 in part due to the same reasons and I noticed about 16.5mpg all highway on the way home from the dealer. Plan on towing landscape stuff for short distances regularly.. I sure hope that MPG improves and this motor doesn't explode itself as she breaks in.. I'm very concerned as to the direction of todays's autos, these days we are kind of stuck on small turbo motors unless you bump up to full size which largely is more inconvenient for most people. Unfortunately, manufacturers are going the "tech+small engine" route for the foreseeable future so you're kind of screwed with that either side of the brand coin one chooses.
I have at least one thing in common with that engine: we both have a long stroke.
Ok, I'm sorry. I couldn’t pass that up
No need to apologize. Speak your truth friend. 🤣
Congrats on having a 4.9" stroke. Your wife must be proud 👏 🤣
A lot of people on here crying about the old days of truck engines, and how concerned they are about having a 4 cylinder in a full-size truck. The reality is that ALL engines, big or small, regardless of application, have issues. Some more than others, but issues none the less. Yet somehow every brand loyalist, self proclaimed expert, and insecure large displacement bubba, has their concerns about anything new or smaller than 5 litres. Well, the old days are gone. Nobody asked for the 2.7, but we got it, and it seems to perform. Some people have had issues, others have had none. It’s new and only time will tell. We all miss the good old days of reliable, large displacement motors that are easy to work on and maintain, but that is the past, not the future. The world is changing. Forward thinking is the only path forward. Get on board or sit back and sulk about what was.
I couldn't agree more.
The reality of it is Bidenomics.
Very informative video sir! I bought my 2019 Silverado 2.7 in December of same year. I got a screamin deal, (probably because a lot of people were scared of it! 😮) so I purchased an extended warranty. The most heavy thing I tow is my motorcycle. So far at about 44,000 miles it has been good.
I have the 2.7l turbo 2 door,2wd 8 foot bed WT and I am getting 22mpg and have no problems! I'm satisfied with it!
That mileage just isn’t that impressive.
I am looking for the same truck. Now that 4 months has passed are you still happy with it? Do you use premium gas or have you tried the 87 octane.
@@Floorguy1985 I use premium and have no complaints with it!
I like the turbo sound. H.P. and torque are impressive. Thanks for this share I've been wondering about this one. Nice to hear from an expert.
I gotta say this. I bought one of these a few years ago. It has been great. I was very skeptical and thought it would be a quick trade in. I’ve been driving tacomas for years and planned on getting another one. I rolled the dice on the Silverado 4x4 2.7L. 52k miles later and I’m still averaging 19-21 MPG in town and 24MPG on the HWY with long interstate trips giving me 25-26 MPG on 87 octane fuel. I put some premium stuff in every now and then if the price is low, which is almost never. I also change the oil every 3,500 miles with cheap 5W 30 dexos oil. I do this because you have to keep an eye on oil levels in these Chevy’s that have cylinder cut offs.
My only problem have been I wish it had the smother 10 speed transmission and I wish it sounded like a V8. Hell I don’t even care about the sound anymore. I will probably trade it in a few more years just because that’s what I do. If they still have this engine in a few more years and it continues to hold up I would get it again.
At this point I worry more about the transmission than the engine, but it’s doing fine as it is, just wish it was smoother.
Jesse Sellers - After your experience with this Silverado, what is your opinion of new Tacoma and Tundra?
@@carlcampbell6827 I love the tacomas. Always have. They are solid, but with how much the price has gone up on them versus the smaller size and capacity it’s just hard to justify getting one now. As far as the new tundras I don’t know. They are expensive and I just really like the previous model design over what they have now. I got a good deal on my Chevy Silverado, but the prices have gone up a good deal on them now as well.
I do have a friend who has a 2022 Tundra and out the door his was 70K. He does like it though, but mine was 32K out the door when I bought my 2.7L Silverado.
Real life experience. Thanks
I understand that the Eight Speed has been improved to work much better and now comes with Better Oil to elite Torque Flutter.
They've gotten better with the 10 speed programming but it's taken so much time. Sseems like they added tons more gears without the code to use them correctly. My sister has the v6 atlas with a vw 10 speed and in normal mode it's always searching at low speeds. Seems fine in sport mode.
Interesting, I easily get mid 20s MPG with 87 octane, zero problem with my work/fleet truck. I've even done 26 on a good day of mostly highway.
The injector on my 2022 Silverado failed at 14k miles in the middle of nowhere TX. 40 days later GM is still working to get the truck up and running. The current GM tech recommendation to the dealer working on this is to circumvent the wiring harness and plug directly into the ECM - quality build...
I’m gonna be honest you’re gonna get those issues with any newer vehicle. Hondas and Toyotas are almost always considered to be the most reliable cars on the road but the amount of them we get in the shop because of computer related issues are unreal. Things these days are getting far too complicated so the suburban white women can sit up high and still have all her luxury gadgets
@@davidbegaye6277 So it actually took GM 3 months to finally figure out all the issues and 'fix' the truck - multiple rusted electrical connectors installed at the factory. Basically replaced almost every wiring harness. They had to fly in multiple techs to address it over that 3 month period. It sat in my driveway another 3 months waiting for the TX lemon law to finalize before I went with the Ridgeline - which has had no problems and meets all my needs as a handyman. GM was completely and totally unconcerned that the truck was unsafe from the factory and fought me tooth and nail on the rental car expense - which was a micro sized Chevy Sonic... I would never put anyone I care about in a GM after my dealings with the corporate office. The only good thing I can say is that the GM technicians were disgusted about what they found under the hood and were completely honest about what they found as part of the lemon law discovery sessions.
Had four 5.3's in 1500's over the years. They were fine. Finding a tech even at the dealer that will be able to troubleshoot the 2.7 would be a worry. My 5.3's always got 16+ mpg and didn't shutdown any cylinders. My brother took his High Country with the 6.2 on vacation and said he got 26 mpg on the highway. Heck, even my 2011 vette gets 26 mpg on the highway.
Thank you for the excellent video and analysis. It was very educational. 2.7 will need some time before we can really make a conclusion as to whether it's a good engine or not. It seems like it might be more suited to the suv/mid-size truck models. I always wondered why GM wouldn't have tried to make their historic 4.3 V6 into a turbo engine. I think that would have been more readily accepted by the public.
I’m a V 8 kinda Guy 😎🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
No 4.3 due to emissions. Same goes for the 4.0 AMC/Jeep straight 6. Same reason why this turbo 4 exists, emissions.
The government ruins most everything.
@@bannedbycommieyoutube5time920 Have you ever been to Bangkok? Thailand has little to no emissions standards and the air quality is horrendous. With that being said, I don't agree with everything the government is doing in regards to air pollution, but we need to find a balance between emissions standards and practicality.
GM did make a 4.3 turbo - GMC Syclone.
@@SD-pi9co just like everything else, common sense tells us some regulations are necessary. US air quality was mostly cleaned up by the early 90’s.
At a certain point, you get diminishing returns, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The engines I mentioned were not creating anything remotely close to 1960’s urban air or current air quality in Bangkok. From a practical perspective, the air quality was fine when these engines were in place.
Another item is diesel engines, which have unreliable emissions equipment including DEF, EGRs that increase EGTs, among other systems that are horrifically expensive to fix. Most people don’t care, but they don’t realize EVERYTHING gets moved by diesel trucks in the US. When diesel trucks don’t last as long and have far more expensive and frequent maintenance/repairs, the cost of EVERYTHING goes up as a result.
@11:38 the lifter issue you describe is lifter delamination that occurs in pushrod engines but this engine isn't a pushrod and it doesn't have lifters, it's dual overhead cam.
Cam followers but they perform the same task. they are both hydraulically adjusted and I would imagine the AFM set up is very similar.
@@GettysGarage maybe you're right, you know more about engines than i do since you are an actual mechanic. I just know that class action lawsuit doesn't include the L3B engine and it's been around for 4-5 years now.
By the way i love watching your content. No bullshit, no bias, just the good/bad and great info.
It’s a slider assembly on the camshaft that slides the cam follower from low lift (max fuel economy) to med lift to high lift (max power). No AFM lifters to fail as in a pushrod engine.
What blows me away about most GDI engines these days is how few of them have gone with dual injection to clean the intake tract. Ford seems to be one of the few to do this - like on my '19 F150 2.7L. I'll probably go 3x further before having to consider walnut blasting.
My 2023 Tacoma V6 has the dual injection “D4S” system as well.
Ford and Toyota are all in in spilt injection. Ford and Toyota have something in common. They are > than GM
You don’t need that with a proper oil-air separator. The wife’s LGX doesn’t have a lick of oil in the intake where my LS3 loves sucking up oil.
@@IVloses Oil in the intake isn’t the only problem, it’s the lack of cleaning action from moving the fuel injector post intake valve.
1. Even a good oil separator doesn’t remove *all* oil vapor/droplets from the intake tract and carbon deposits come from open valve reversion, valve stem seal/guide leakage *and* PCV oil deposits.
Split port injection is the only sure fire way to eliminate carbon building on the intake valve with GDI.
The other band aids aren’t true solutions
@@IVloses I also installed a can on my wife's Palisade with GDI, and it does a great job of removing lots of gnarly crud from the intake system, but like our friend "B C" comments here, I know this is only an aid, not a cure.
Lucas Fuel stabilizer is the answer for the fuel injectors
Anecdotal but here’s my feedback after owning it for two years. It’s been nothing but reliable and I like the way it drives better than the other engines as well. I live in colorado and regularly drive it at freeway speeds at high elevation with dirt bikes, mountain bikes, kayaks, landscaping material and equipment, etc. I don’t tow boats or heavy trailers, neither do most truck owners. For the average full size truck driver that wants a large cab and a good sized bed, it’s a great truck. Go buy your diesel if you tow boats up mountains. Or if you just drive it to work and your kids soccer practice, but you want to pretend you tow a lot. For the rest, this seems like a great truck so far. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong in the future. We’ll see, but after two years of owning it I couldn’t be happier.
Wait until your lifter collapses.
@@sabastian4858 did that happen to you?
I think it's overhead cam, not pushrod.
2 years is nothing, 4 out of 100 catastrophically failing is crazy.
@@GeorgeL.3 4 out of 100? Is that a fact? Mine is still perfect. We’ll see if it stays that way.
The AFM lifter failure is only with the OHV engines. This OHC system doesn't use the lifters to deactivate the cylinders it uses the third step on the 3-step sliding cam. On cylinders 2 and 4 there are no lobes on the camshaft for the third cam profile so the valves aren't activated.
Have you known anyone to have a failure of the AFM with this particular engine? If so, how many? I'm well aware of the lifter failures with other Chevy engines. What's the cost to fix any failures related to this specific AFM implementation with this Chevy 2.7L turbo engine?
@@thomasjburton I don't think so, I've been watching a lot of owner reviews of the turbomax engine and there doesn't seem to be many problems with it, no AFM failures that I've found.
@PlayWaves1 I appreciate your reply. The dealership service rep that I bought my truck from only had one cam replacement needed that he was aware of with the 2.7L Chevy engine in about the year and a half that the person I talked to at the time mentioned. I'm planning on following up to get more details about that particular scenario in terms of how well taken care of that truck was, etc. I'll post here again once I get that Intel.
I just purchased a 2024 GMC truck with 2.7 turbo I think I will get over 200k they make great trucks, my last two GMC trucks I got over 200k miles they had the V8 I’m staying positive on this engine.
i'm worried that all that tech will need a lot of repairs throughout the years. knowing how much the turbos depend on clean oil, i would get oil changes more often than suggested
@@topherh5093you should check the road test Chevy did. B3st engine they've made longevity-wise since the vette 80s v8
200k. That's it?
Im driving one of these right now it a Chevy. I gotta say I love it so far. I have always had a 5.3 but this had a sweet lease on it. I have pulled the goose decoy trailer I use for goose hunting it a tandem cargo trailer with shelves and a ton of decoys and blinds absolutely no problem at all.
This was the answer I was looking for. Did you have any issues with the trailer in mud or fields?
Another great review. I had 100k before trading it in. I found the truck to be very light and didn't have balls when passing semi trucks. But it passed all the work tasks.
fair enough! what did you trade in for?
Trade in for v8 chevy the redesign. I have two
@@michaelpanacheese604 how was the mpg on hwy?
Impressive numbers. Great truck to have while it is in warranty. Not the one to own 15 years from now.
So, basically you have one and have a lot of personal experience with this truck and motor?
Not to own after 3/36. If it is so great they should warranty it to 100k miles
Theres talk that they are going to change the warranty on the 2.7 to 100k based on how successful its been in having very few issues .Also because of peoples hesitation
Ford's 4 cylinder ecoboost engines aren't the best, but the v6 ecoboosts have proven themselves to be long-lasting when you dont neglect oil changes. I've seen dozens of 3.5 ecoboost f150s with over 250k miles. Ford's v6 ecoboosts have forged internals, hypereutetic pistons, 6-bolt mains, and beefy piston rings.
If GM built their 2.7 to similar durability standards, it should be able to go 250k+ miles with proper maintenance. Turbos and smaller displacement do not automatically mean poor longevity. It's all about how the engine was built. Diesels run higher compression and 10-20psi more boost.
Well I’m 15 years slap a 6.2 or 5.3 in it…. You’ll still be up $ from
The 5k up charge on a new v8
My 2023 Silverado gets between 21-25.5 mpg daily the 2.7 also has 435 ft lbs of torque vs the 5.3’s 380 ft lbs
Did you check the emissions output comparing it to a v8. This engine produces less emissions than a v8 burning the same amount of fuel. It is why many companies are switching to small displacement turbo engines.
Pickup Truck plus talk just did a great live video with the Gm engineer of the 2.7. Was impressive
Yes saw it and that engineer who designed this engine emphasized it is designed for 87 octane and going higher is throwing away your money.
Agreed! It’s a great video and explains the technology and the incredible reliability of this motor. It sure looks like most commenters to this video have not watched the video.
The 3.0 diesel is the only way to go in these trucks and IMO is by far the best value. Inherently balanced, gobs of low end torque, and mine gets 23+mpg city and 30mpg hwy. It also will tow 13k.
The truck engine is tuned to run on 87 octane. The engine variant in the Cadillac is the version that requires 91 octane.
100% can run 87 octane. But at least I read GM still recommends running 91
GM does have a Premium tune for this engine. unleash the demons!
It can absolutely run on 87 octane, but the knock sensors will decrease your power, and your efficiency...
GM engineers say the truck engine is absolutely tuned for 87 and you are just wasting money on premium fuel. Check out truck and SUV talk , they had engineer on live talking about this.
@@GettysGarage they do not recommend running 91. Max power output is achieved with 87
I bought my 22 silverado last year 2023 wit 16 miles on it. At the moment I got 4k miles on it, fun to drive, saw it has a plastic-ish oil pan drain bolt and realized the oil pan was plastic-ish. Also has a oil and trans cooler, so good coolant level maintenance is a thing to keep in mind imho. Still love it.
Alex ,I'm a Ford guy,and I've owned several high mileage Ecoboost engines.I will never ever go back to a v8.If I was buying GM I'd select this engine.The 5.3 has not been without problems if you look you will find them.I know many that have this engine and are more than happy with it.Pulls incredibly well.Im also looking forward to Ram's new Hurricane turbo engine.Run Supreme fuel,use synthetic oil and change it well before the oil life monitor tells you, and an occasional wide open Throttle, and any turbo engine will reward you with many miles
The 5.3 is extremely famous for a reason, and swapped into everything made. Only consistent problem I've seen is those crappy intakes, 250 bucks if you DIY the repair.
@@wymple09you are referring to the LS/ vortec variant of the 5.3 which were amazing. The LT variant of the 5.3 which has been around over a decade is a massive turd with lots of problems.
What a soyboy comment lmao
I did a road trip rental with a 2022 2.7L 1500. Liked the truck a lot. 18MPG going very easy on smooth roads 45-55 backroads and 65mph highway. Never exceeded the speed limit. Truck returned 19MPG with a tank of 93 octane, on the way back. Which was also downhill a bit (not much more than 1000 feet) back to sea level. Drove in some light snow, no issues what so ever.
Great video Alex - man, you nailed it when you said there are a lot of complex systems and active components that have the potential to breakdown - hopefully GM can iron out the failures/issues in what I think is pretty neat technology -
You’re back in ON again?! Welcome, thanks and cheers
Erated -78 I do not recommend buying GM stock. They build expensive heavy pickups that run on 2 cylinders and those powered with electric motors.
For those who are unaware- the new Canyons and Colorados are now equipped with the 2.7l turbo four. The 3.6l V6 and 2.8 Duramax diesel have sadly both been retired, so it’s the only engine available but it comes in different states of tune. It seems like a good fit for the mid-size trucks with a better power to weight ratio than in the full size trucks. But, in my opinion the 3.6l was a great fit too, fairly bullet proof, plenty of power and the fuel economy was nearly identical to what these new four bangers are getting. I’m just guessing but maybe GM wanted to advance the technology and increase low end torque? But it’s just not really an efficient power plant either so it remains a mystery why THIS is the future?
Epa regs.
the 3.6 v6 is fucking garbage
The 2019 2.7 sliverado pickup I had avg'd a hand calculated 24mpg per tank. Other then a diesel with Def, there really isn't a a better mpg out of any of these newer powertrains. I can only hope a colorado/canyon would be more efficient.
It only comes in different power levels(3 of them) in the 2023 colorado. The 2023 canyon only gets the full power 310hp 430 torque version of the 2.7T.
@@troyg3439 the ZR2 colorado comes with the high output engine
Thank you sir for pointing out past flaws, along with the innovations. That sort of insight is sorely lacking on most other reviews of the 2.7. An engine that I doubt will still be running and driving in fifteen years like we expect the V8’s to be.
Why do you doubt the engine longevity? What are you heading your opinion on?
@@5zwoodworks Been a professional mechanic since 1987 and counting. My past experience with small displacement, GM, turbo, gasoline engines, ain’t one of high opinion. So, taking that experience, I base my opinion of future small displacement, GM, turbo, gasoline engines
You can expect a modern V8 to be running in 15 years but you would be mistaken 😂
@@5zwoodworksIt’s complexity. Didn’t you watch the video?
@@andysteward8617Exactly. I wouldn’t touch a modern engine. I’ll suffer the low gas mileage and lack of power for longevity and cost of maintenance any day.
At 10k miles on my 2023, dealership has seen it more of its life than I have so far. It’s driving mostly ok as of now, just a small coolant leak somewhere around the radiator but have had the entire fuel system replaced including high pressure fuel pump and a total of 9 ECM replacements. Next time it breaks down it falls under the lemon law, fingers crossed.
How does that lemon law work, how many times does it go back for repairs til it counts? and what is the outcome if it does fall under lemon law?
Love this engine.. the sound and the torque. I love 4 cyl turbos though. I got surprisingly good fuel economy versus the v8 I rented and it felt faster off the line. But you’re right it is a complex and new engine. I bet gm will make it great over the next couple of generations.
Tell us how much you love it after spending 60 grand and it explodes in 3 years.
@@pcmountaindog 40k cash w/ 8k miles. We'll see--I trust gm's engineers over YT commenters, but do expect a bit more maintenance.
@@fabbritechnology Don't you know YT commenters know everything and are the best mechanics? I'm sure many of them have at least 3 years of experience turning wrenches. There's no chance their comments are a result of insecure man-boy knee jerk reactions to - gasp - a smaller but highly capable engine. Most have probably never seen a 4 barrel carb and wouldn't remember how every mechanic said fuel injection will never last.
What do you mean it’s not common for Turbo Gas engines to produce torque like that?
The 3.5L EcoBoost makes 420 of its 470lb-ft rating (90%-ish) at around 2500 rpm. Which is not very far off this 1800-1900rpm feat of this 2.7L 4 Popper.
The 3.0L EcoBoost reaches 400lb-ft (90% - ish) @ around 1400rpm, and makes 440 around 1800rpm. Which is actually better than both aforementioned engines.
The 2.7L EcoBoost makes 350lb-ft (90%-ish) around 2700 rpm but actually makes torque FASTER than the 3.5L at lower rpm having roughly 125% more torque than its big brother 3.5L @ the same 2100rpm.
Either way that’s three engine examples that out achieve VERY similar to the 90% torque at 1800-1900rpm achievement that this 4 cylinder boasts. Granted lol yes they are all 3 FORD engines… 🤷🏼♂️
Now some BMW higher revving Turbo I6 or Twin Turbo V8’s they show curves around 4000-6000 rpm’s for peak torque values.
But I think that this achievement is more common that it is rare.
I mean am I missing something ? Maybe I’m a total idiot and don’t know what I’m talking about lol 😂
I’m LOVE the channel but that little fact threw me as odd? I feel like that pertains to older Turbo Gassers.
21:30 "usually simplicity equals reliability and this thing is very far from simple"
I couldn't agree more, so well said.👍👍
Usually the case, I do like that GM is pushing the technology but would I want to pay 60,000 dollars for something unproven, not really.
@@GettysGarage You think if fuel efficiency improved by some 20% then all that tech would be justified?
If hybrids didn't improve MPGs, nobody would want complexity I'm assuming.
If most viewers ACTUALLY understood how this 2.7 was designed and created, there would be no doubt to its durability and longevity. External waterpump, beefed up internals, stronger block, cooling of turbo independent of engine Temps, etc. This is a very well-thoughtout engine.
You also talk about direct injection which you know is not exclusive to this engine. I believe it's a moot point because it makes it seem like the 2.7 will suffer failure because of a universal fuel delivery designed used in 100's of engines.
I agree with you in that this 2.7 is a well thought out engine. It’s just a shame that it’s matted to 8L90 trans instead of the 10L90.
SLIDING CAM
SHAFTS 😂
@@rolandthethompsongunner64 Yeah I said the same thing till I realized Audi does the same thing with their 3.0t very solid motor and the only issue was the “slide points” because I don’t remember what they were were getting beat up and failing because they were too narrow they widened them out to distribute the force better and there hasn’t been issues since. The only thing that worries me is having 3 cam profiles that the engine can switch between actively.
@@ruffxm I got a screaming deal on my 2023 that I love at two years now. The reason, the big "boys" in Bend, OR wouldn't touch anything but V8's. I got $5K off of list plus a $1.5K discount because of the 2.7L. The dealer had a lot of these trucks and was sold out of the V8 version, but if they had any they were marking them up $10K over list!!!!
the MPG dropped with the HO 2.7L. the 350 ft pounds on 2020 with an upgraded air filter/plenum boosts very nicely. I run 87 with lucas fuel cleaner in every tank since new and the motor purrrs. usually 19mpg at 82mph cruise. mine is 4wd, 19 2wd mode, 18mpg AWD mode. it picks up and moves, no performance issues - had it 60k miles and I love it. also has airflow shutters on the low-mounted-on-its-own intercooler (the bottom grill). Only downside is going offroad in florida if swampy water - will submerge lower intercooler shutter system in sandy water, so Ive not used it less than I would have used a 5.3 offroad. around town MPG is more like 21mpg. 2020 model is 87 octane.
I have 60,000 miles on mine and it is by far the best part of the truck. The 2.7T is a fantastic engine…
It’s funny how most are concerned about the engine, but it’s solid . 4 cyl bias is real lol
@@thomasmcghee2468 , absolutely correct!
@@thomasmcghee2468 Absolutely...you're dealing with semi-neanderthals who are programmed as "V8 is manly and anything less is not manly". Explaining the science behind it is useless.
I have this engine in my 2023. I have the Sierra 1500 Pro WT. Its a singlecab, 4x4, white, steel wheels, vinyl floors etc. The only upgrade option is chrome bumpers.
Yeah, it's a 166 cubic inch beast. My guess is if you actually try to tow anywhere near 9000 pounds with this engine on a regular basis, it will be on the scrap heap at 60K to 80K miles.
Why would you say that? It's built with better internal materials than the old,should be retired,5.3 v8
So it’s turbocharged. Like diesels. Anything else? Why would it have wear issues? Want to compare reliability to a new diesel?
Owner since 2020 towing 6,800 total payload including passengers. This truck is a absolutely flawless 3 years this month April 22. I have towed now 23K miles and in mountain country out West. I have yet to have an issue. I owned the 5.3 2019 Silverado. Was OK but lower performance then my current 2.7L T. And my fuel milage is better even while towing. My low end torque is masterful in grades! If I had to tow 9K lbs due to work /continually very likely I'd be in a 3/4 ton anyway.
tow numbers are ridiculous at this point. Someone needs to explain the concept of "just because you can doesnt mean you should" to these people.
If you tow on a regular basis you should get a 3/4 ton or the 3.0 diesel. Not everybody tows.
My powerboost gets about 11 - 11.8 l/100 in city and between 9 - 10.2 l/100 on the highway. 2021 f150 long box crew cab lariat high on 35" x 11.50 wildpeaks. I lost a bit with the AT tires, but its still better than any truck i've had in the past.
Should’ve used the 4.2 inline 6 from the older trailblazers and turboed them for the truck
I have an 02 trailblazer in my backyard, that inline 6 is a monster
Got a great deal on a 23 Chevy 4x4 with this engine. Initially apprehensive, I was impressed with how easily this engine drives un-trailered. With a 12' work trailer that weighs ~3k lbs, it requires more pedal to get moving than my previous 5.3 did. After a week, the (memory of the) difference faded away.
This much tech (and the price to fix it) is why I thought an extended warranty would be a good idea...and ive never been an extended warranty kinda guy.
So far, with 2500 miles, my avg fuel mileage (according to the truck which is within .2 mpg of manual calculation when i checked) is just over 17 mpg. That's with city trailer towing, new truck idling while playing with gadgets inside, and a 1200 mi road trip with 78 mph speeds.
-23 Crew cab, 6.5' bed 4x4 is getting better combined mileage than my '17 regular cab long bed 2wd 5.3 truck (the '17 truck was usually 2 mpg off of actual mpg)
Only issues: transmission sometimes clunks down to first gear only after hitting the gas from a stop.
The audio (both fm radio and from audio book from phone) has stopped working 4 or 5 times. A restart of the truck fixed it.
Great analysis on the L3B. I've been considering a new Colorado or Canyon and have had some serious questions about this engine. This is going to be a retirement truck for me, so I'm looking for something reliable. I love the styling on the new Chev / GM mid-size pickups, but this complex new turbo 4 banger is giving me the willy's!! Thanks for the honest answers and opinion!!
I like my 2015 have had it 8 years.
But I'm very skeptical of the new models Esp. because of the new 4 cylinder.2.7
I will have to see how this new model pans out. (the new Canyon) You can only get it in 4 cyl.Turbo. Don't like that!!
Too new. $40K - 65K (TOO MUCH)
You are not the only one skeptical about that new engine. (2.7) I am scared of it also. 😳
Half as many bearings, rings, valves, and heads to go bad. The transmission is the weak point
I feel like it's a trap. Prices continue to grow and reliability gets worse.
You are not alone on the durability of the 2.7 Gm turbo engine.
I dont think that they will last long.
I went from a 2015 gmc 5.3 to the turbo mine is a 22 Chevy 1500. So far no problems at 15000 km. Wish me luck. PS 18 MPG average according to the computer. 🇨🇦
I have a 2020 Silverado with this engine in it and so far I like it a lot for it being a 4-cylinder in a big truck. I have had issues with mine but it has all been failing sensors and other plastic computer junk which have been replaced for free under warranty. I haven't had any mechanical issues so far, but there also isn't much mileage on it due to it being a lease vehicle. When I first got it in August of 2020 I was originally running high-octane gas in it as the norm up until the gas prices skyrocketed. Now I just run normal 87 and top up the tank every Friday so I don't have to buy as much. I'm sure adding an octane booster into the tank would help for less than buying high-test fuel.
As for engine longevity I do my best to buy the best engine oil I can get my hands on. Since my mileage is extremely low I'm only on my second oil change. The first oil change was done at the dealer to take advantage of a free oil change. But when it came time to do a second oil change I was happy because the ACDelco oil they use is crap. The engine felt like it didn't rev clean when I was driving around. With the second oil change I bought some full synthetic STP and it runs much smoother than it did with the ACDelco junk in it. When the third oil change comes around I'll be switching back over to the Royal Purple I've been running in my previous truck. From what I read on RP's website the stuff I was previously running is formulated for newer aged vehicles as wall as those with turbo's. So that might help with longevity.
As for current gen 5.3's I will have to disagree with them being good engines. Which hurts me to say as the 5.3 is one of my fave GM engines besides the 327. The 3rd Gen 5.3 out of my previous 2004 Silverado was a great engine with minimal problems. After 2005 when they started going ham with the AFM rubbish the 5.3 stopped being good in a stock config.
You really don’t want to switch different oils like, or change to different octanes. Pick one and stick too it. I would just run 87 in it, and out additive every 7500.
@@calebniederhofer6529 If it was ran for 100K miles on nothing but conventional oil then switching oils would be a no no due to worn seals and what not. But since it has less than 15K miles on it and nothing but synthetic gets ran in it switching oil isn't going to bother it.
Especially since you can't control what a dealership puts in it when a family member tells you to take advantage of a first free oil change. And to be honest it's a modern turbo'd engine with tighter tolerances so it shouldn't even have conventional ran in it in the first place.
I run AmsOil and Royal Purple in my vehicles, if I run anything else it's because I don't have the money for my normal choices at the time and I get the next best thing that isn't as costly. Switching oil is better than no oil changes at all.
So far it has only had two oil changes done to it and the third is coming up soon so it's getting Royal Purple this time around and will continue to get it there after.
I think that a lot of the carbon build up on the lifter can be prehipped with an oil cat can because all that high pressure from the cylinder will be push down between the piston and the cylinder and being transfert to the intake system with a connected overpressure hose to lean out the pressur in the crankcase
It’s not built for fuel economy it’s built to meet emissions, same story with the Hurricane I6 phasing out the Hemi. There’s a lot of tech in that engine to squeeze all that output, it might hurt longterm longevity.
but the fuel economy is not even good, that's the worst part.
@@GettysGarage exactly, of course people not in the know will fall for the marketing ploy.
It is all about economy and power. Nobody could compete with the Ecoboost motors. The manufactures made fun of Ford for doing that, and going to aluminum, everyone is starting to follow that route, including Toyota. The N/A v8 motors can’t compete powerwise, and the torque curves, economy.
@@vr4787 Marketing ploy? It is better for consumers honestly. I drive a Ford 2.7 and still think that is the best motor, for anyone not towing over about 6k. I am a big EB guy, but that is because I Believe Ford is putting out the best, and most reliable turbo charged motors in trucks.
@@calebniederhofer6529I really don’t see how having to pay for high octane fuel for peak performance on a direct injection engine that’s prone to carbon build up, with GM’s issue laden AFM/DFM sytem that gets marginally better mpg than a 5.7 hemi like the video pointed out (which is less complex and more affordable to mod/repair) is better for consumers. If you think Ford ecoboosts are reliable they have their share issues especially with cam phasers waring out and turbos leaking as they age. It’s not a simple or cheap repair either. Squeezing all that power out of a smaller displacement gas engine comes at a cost.
My pickup is not a 4x4.
Of course the engine us installed logitudinally! Horizontal orientation is for FWD automobiles. I suppose you could do it in a pickup, but why would you? Pickups with 2WD are RWD.
First, this engine doesn't have lifters, and the guy who designed this thing flat-out said it was tuned for 87, and that premium was a waste of money.
I saw the interview where he said exactly that.
I have a 2022 GMC 3500. With a 6.6. Welder , 100 gal fuel tank and big tool box in the back all the time and I’m getting 16 mpg and never on a highway. All secondary roads. I love it…….. so far. Only have 15 k on it.
Hope they did better with this 2.7 than the oil burning 2.4 Ecotec. That was such a problem child of an engine.
I had one of the 2.4I. I was a problem on 4 Wheels. ( Junk) js.
I had several 2.4 liters and had zero issues kept them for several 100 thousand miles. It’s all about using good oil and change intervals.
RETIRED 78, USAF, VFW. STAINLESS STEEL CYBER TRUCK 800 HP, SEMI TRUCK DRIVE TRAIN. HAULING 14K LOADS, 500 MILE RANGE.
One would think the sliding cam would eliminate the self collapsing lifters completely? 12:17
It does. Collapsing lifters do not exist on this engine. Hopefully he corrects this info
I Just got a back order new 2023 gmc canyon at4x load with 2.7 turbo motor i am impressed with the motor i also have been a chey guy big motors all my life i love 8 cylinders motor but wow to this motor i am impressed for a 4 cylinder motor let she how she does in the coming years. thank you for your review
Your definatly right about the tech breaking down. As a GM tech i run a 99 k2500 hd with a 454 gets 14 to 15 hiway on reg fuel. Hp and tourqe numbers between that 2.7 and my 7.4 are near equal but im quite sure that truck wont outpull my 454 and cant get that 2.7 in a 2500 hd so id say GM doesnt think so either. All that technology nothing but headaches that means countless days at dealer for repair and be driving some chevy malabu loaner yippi...ya thanks but no thanks GM
those GMT400 trucks are worth their weight in gold! I used to own a 96 k1500 Z71 with the 350. best truck I ever owned should of never sold it. I appreciate GM trying to move the needle but it's not something I would personally want to own in a pick up truck.
One thing the 2.7 sure won't do compared to the 454 is tow for 100k under boost 60-75% of the time.
If you turbo that 454 you will have some serious power.
Probably the biggest reason why GM doesn’t throw it in their HD trucks is because HD trucks don’t have to meet MPG and emissions goals since they’re unrated. That’s why you have a 6.6 gasser that was mated to a 6l90. Now their 1500s aren’t HD classified and therefor do have to be EPA certified and that’s a major reason why they shoved this engine in it.
@@GettysGarage Those 96 Z71s were nice; would be worth refurbishing. Hell I am still kicking myself for letting go of my 71 Ford F250 heavy duty Camper Special with 360ci.
This active fuel management on the 2.7 isn’t as present only under very very light loads or low speeds. For most part these 22+ 2.7 in my experience having 23 canyon with 2.7. It doesn’t really go into “eco” mode is what is called not AFM. Now DI, your worries can be solved with simple methods . Such as running additives depending on how often vehicle is used.
Highest mileage I know of with this engine on regular maintenance with no issues is 230k miles.
Just purchased a 2024 Colorado with this engine. Pretty impressed.
I have a couple of 2022 GMC 2.7 pickups. 17 mpg city 19 hiway which is Bout 2 mpg better than a 5.3 GMC I have. My 5.7 2019 Ram gets a little better than my 5.3 but not as good of gas mileage as the 2.7. The 2.7 will hold 80 mph at 2000 rpm over mountain passes and never has to downshift due to the massive low range torque. Very smooth power plant that is pretty quick. Crazy that it has more torque than my 6.4 Power Wagon.
No it doesnt
I thought 430 was a bigger number than 429 but Fozzy bear knows better.
How many trucks do you own lol
Too many. 3 Dakotas, and 2 Durango among others. I am a Mopar guy at heart.
what trucks do you NOT own!! wow I love it lol I will say it is a smooth driving engine no issues there.
My 2020 had major lifter issues requiring a rebuild.75,000 miles along with 1500 idle hours. Not made for commercial work.
I ran both 87 and 93 octane. There was no difference in mileage. I drive it lightly and I have tried to make it better mileage than the 2015 2500 Duramax I had prior to this 2020 2.7.
Plus my 2.7 likes oil. 2 litres between oil changes.
I’ve been waiting on a review of this engine for some time thanks.
curious to see how this holds up with fleet drivers !!
T&B Up-North - I think these trucks would be too finicky for fleet use.
I have a 2009 Silverado 5.3 with 243000 miles on it. I've replaced one ignition coil and that's it. I pull two different boats with it pretty often, and it feels like it hasn't lost any power. It's really been a good one! And it's showing 17.4 overall miles per gallon.
those earlier 5.3's were solid engines!
04 super duty 241000
Almost 246000 now
Cool
@@joesal361I have an 08 with the 4.8.....I have 296.000 miles on mine
Great Information. This engine is better suited for GMs midsize suv lineup not a half ton pickup truck. With the cylinder deactivation/ fuel management, history is destined to repeat itself for those old enough to remember Cadillacs 4*6*8* engine.
Chevy should bring back the 4.8L and use that as the base engine and have a lineup of
4.8L, 2.7L, 5.3L, 6.2L, 3.0L
While I agree with you mostly that Cadillac was a long time and before computer controls
Ok I just bought a 2023 crew cab 4x4 with the 2.7 turbo it out pulls a 5.3 Hands Down I should know I’ve owned a new Chevrolet truck every 2 years since 1994 had them all 350 tbi 454 tbi 350 vortec 454 vortec 5.3 since 99 I promise you drive one and you’ll change your tune Immediately I couldn’t be more impressed and at 77/78 mph I got 29mpg I use 93 octane Only Insane to me
What concerns me is that you stated that it has a 9,000 lbs or so towing package. So when do you think that this package will get out of boost doing that, I think maybe going down hill, can't wait to see the uninformed be shocked that it doesn't get 17 MPG. Seems far too complex for what it is, a lot of potential for engine issues and yes, put me down for a large displacement engine turning low rpm's to last a lot longer, just my two cents.
I heard GM’s new tech involves 1 cylinder and cutting holes in the floorboards. You and your buddies can help move it along with your feet. It’s called the Flintstone engine.
The reason they are using a 4 cylinder instead of a 6 is material cost savings. There are engineers that spend all there time reducing material. They study making every screw one thread shorter. Or like the ignition locking pin that went horribly wrong when they shaved 1/4 mm. Anyone remember car’s shutting off and causing accidents? GM’s fix, don’t put anything extra on your key chain. So imagine the lustful excitement when they get to get rid of 2 cylinders and blame it on epa smog regulations.
lol I remember the service tech telling me not to put any house keys on the key fob, only the key for the car. I was like, what?
What new truck engines are NOT port injected nowadays. On my 2019 6.4 Dodge Hemi Challenger, I installed a Catch Can and drain out a couple of ounces of oil every 2 or 3 thousand miles. (On my 6.4 Challenger, I get 22-26 MPG turning only 2000 RPM at 80 MPH.)
This never gets mentioned, but this engine was designed by GM to replace their 4.3 v6 base engine, not their v8's. It destroys the 4.3 in every metric. The fact that you compared it over and over to v8's shows how impressive this engine actually is. Compared to the 5.3, it's cheaper to build, weighs less (more payload!), tows almost as much, and feels much stronger in day to day driving due to that low end torque. It also gets better city MPG, but yeah on the highway n/a v8's can still do quite well especially when they start dropping cylinders (mds/afm/dfm).
This is truly a great point. Great video, yet this is the real lead, and it was buried deep in the long video & never discussed.
Fair point. the reason I guess I compared it to the V8 is because it's the other gas engine option. I felt like that's what most people are going to be interested about. whether to settle with the 4 cylinder or step up the v8. the tech itself is actually a little wild, but it does just concern me about longevity and reliability. but only time will tell!
That's a good point. I think this platform is decent for those that care about mpg. Maybe better suited in a midsized or suv. What kills me is the AFM. Why the AFM? Its a ticking time bomb, it will cause engine failure. Believe me. Just spent a month this past summer removing my 5.3 l83 out of my Silverado due to lifter failure right at the 100k mark. Ended up fully deleting the afm with a texas speed delete kit with a stage 1 cam and ls7 lifters and a handful of other odds and ends while I was there. What's interesting to me is mpg with afm was at best 19mpg highway. After I deleted the afm I now get 21.5mpg. So why afm? If a better cam and lifters can achieve those results? I'm fortunate to have mechanical ability, tools, shop etc to fix most anything. But the average guy better stay in warranty. Or have deep pockets.
The new GM Product’s are plain junk.
@@ramiroescamilla7263 I drove Chevy trucks most of my life - until 2019. Hate to say it, but I agree.
Note on displacement theory. GM could be thinking about export market. Some market tax is based on displacement. Usually 3.0 is considered a new tax bracket.
I can see a lot going wrong with this engine. Maybe not while in warranty but probably around the 60-70 mile range especially if the owner has been pulling things such as a pontoon,heavy trailer etc. wouldn’t buy one. First thing is change the chip out so it won’t drop any cylinders you may get a few more miles out of it.
The afm on this motor is completly done different than the 5.3 6.2 series. Hasnt had the issue come up
Was in the market for a truck back in the fall…looked at full size and all they would have on the lots were these “4 bangers” as my dad lovingly refers to a 4 cylinder…so I started to think about a canyon but 2023 they don’t offer the 6 anymore only this 4 cylinder as well…so I went used 2020 and this video just solidifies my decision to not get one with the 4 banger in it!!
It’s overhead cam, it doesn’t have lifters to fail
I have a 2019 F150 with the twin turbo 2.7 V6 and 10 speed auto and it’s EPA rating is 26 highway and 20 in town and I regularly get 21-22.5 mpg in town and 24 on the highway at 70 mph. I have achieved the 26 mpg several times but it requires perfect weather and flat roads. I’m currently at 112,000 miles and I purchased it new. I have not had one single issue and have done all recommended maintenance. This is the only 2.7 I would ever buy.
Be kind of cool to have this as a crate engine in both FWD and RWD APPLICATIONS.
I’ve had my GMC 2.7 for 2 years now. I only put Ethanal Free gasoline in it mostly 91 octane but will use 88. I get 26 mpg Hwy and 21 mpg City with a max record of 29mpg (50 mile avg). I get 10-12 mpg towing a 7,000lb rv at 65 mph.
Although with that being said, I’m currently researching for a ton truck. I’m not going to keep my sierra longer than 50k miles.
AFM on a 4 cylinder, this cant go wrong, not like they have a history of it.
It's all about the the final fuel economy number in the brochure.
If I remember I do know there is a company that sells a mod to delete the AFM.
I had a 2001 Silverado with the 4.8. It only had a 5 speed with 270hp and 285 ft lbs. The 5.3 was only 285 and 325 with a 4 speed. Those numbers were at 5200 and 4000 RPM.
Trucks have come a long way. While a 4 banger doesn’t sound ideal in a truck, its probably not as bad as people think it is once you look at the whole package.
Not as bad as people think? It a hundred times worse. If we put it in an airplane would you fly in it?
@@pcmountaindog Perfect example. Aircraft used to have four engines. The FAA mandated aircraft have three engines up until the DC-10 and 727. Now most aircraft you fly in, like the 737 have only two engines. Because……the newer engines are more reliable and produce more power, and can sustain bigger aircraft. Along with being more efficient. So would you rather fly in a 707? Or a 737-8?
@@pcmountaindogsomeone cant math 😂
Alex - get a new 22+ Tundra and review it - please! The new 3.5 TT engine…I feel won’t live up to the legendary benchmark of the 4.7 and 5.7 v8’s! I’ve got 300k on my old 2008 Tundra 5.7 and nothing ever goes wrong with that damn thing, nothing! It’s like a cockroach…can’t kill it lol. Best vehicle I’ve ever owned - period. (…and I’ve had gm/ford/dodge gas jobs too). Also have two newer diesels…an LML dmax and a 1st gen 6.7 PS. The Ford 6.7 is a maintenance nightmare…the kind that makes you piss the bed. Lol
Shop has an 08, 10 and 13...all over 250k and NOT ONE issue with engine...that is remarkable considering they tow pallets of brick and skids
Don't forget the Tundra 4.6L V8 that replaced the 4.7L. It's even better than the 4.7 in my opinion. My 2013 has the 4.6L and it is simply a great engine. Hauls around our small to medium trailers (fishing boat and enclosed trailers) easily as well as our slide-in pop-up pickup camper. Runs about one gear lower than 5.7liter would pulling the same loads so I get the same mpg as a 5.7L when towing, but when running empty, I get 18 - 20mpg on the highway (hand calculated on 300+ mile trips) depending on if I drive 80mph or 70mph (80mph speed limits here).
I like the simplicity of the Chevy front end. It’s slightly more sleek too..
For now I still think it's an abomination. A four-cylinder in a full size pickup. I'll have to wait and see for the $100,000 mi reviews.
Not sure if you read thru the comments but there are a couple of post of owners with 100k plus who haven’t had any issues, the 2.7 has been solid there’s just tons of bias with it being a 4cyl
Can't speak for this engine but with my 2013 f150 ecoboost when I put my tuner i was actually surprised how little it was actually under boost while cruising down the highway most of the time on flat roads its around 3 to 5 psi vacuum and all but one steep hill very rarely goes over 4 psi of boost