Awesome interview thanks Tim and Kevin! I don't know how I didn't catch this one sooner. I'm now curious if my 2023 ZR2 will have the aluminum oil pan, as Kevin says here they'll be implementing that change over the next year or so and my ZR2 has a build date of July 15th. Anyway, I'm not worried about this 2.7 engine at all and I'm excited to feel the 430 torque👍🏻
I've watched a couple of interviews with Kevin Luchansky, and the unasked question that we GM 2.7l turbomax owners are still waiting to hear is: "Kevin, after GM's 2.7l engine team ran this engine for hundreds (or thousands) of hours through all kinds of stress tests, load tests, & extreme driving simulations and then disassembled the engine to examine wear on the engine parts, was there any issue with carbonization from the direct injection ports?"
@@PineMountain981 Interesting question. I mean, if there were issues, GM would have used port injection to fix that. I can tell you talking with multiple engineers at different brands that they all think the carbon build-up issue as the most over blown issue online today. None of them see it as an issue and even brands like Ford and Toyota with direct and port injection don't advertise those are being a solution to carbon build-up. It is more of yeah, it helps a little.
@@Pickuptrucktalk It would be great if you could email or phone Kevin and ask him. In researching this 2.7l gas engine on youtube and in automobile forums, this is the #1 potential concern & unknown question I see listed by mechanics and owners in the comment sections: will the direct injection ports cause serious internal carbonization buildup by 60k-90k-120k miles?
20,000 miles down on my 23 Colorado with the HO tune. Several roadtrips including towing 6000lbs from Florida to Colorado in 2 days. The engine is easily a highlight of the truck. Long 2% grades pulling a trailer through Kansas into a strong headwind and the engine sat at 2300rpm at 75mph. Zero power concerns. Loving it so far and I probably run it harder than the typical user. Lots of off-road, uphill on dirt, long roadtrips, daily driving in a hill heavy high elevation area, and the l3b just eats it all up without issues.
Before non-engineers comment on engineer's design, they should be fully versed in the insane constraints and limitations, especially automotive designers, are under. @@44coma
I’m an automotive engineer don’t tell them I told you this, but we (employer) really don’t care. Truck blows up after the warranty. To be honest. Most cars nowadays. Have a 10 year expiration date. The people I work with every day with the smartest people I know from mechanics to former Dakar , and Baja engineers,. Trust me we can make a reliable engine Toyota was doing it back in the 2000s. There’s been multiple cases where through long-term testing we have found multiple issues but since the issues we found “most likely” happen over 200,000 miles we purposely did nothing. our customer base (likely used) who drives cars not far into the future. Don’t have the money to buy a new products so we don’t care what they think about us. And the customer basis I that afford a new truck will have a perfectly problem with the truck for 6 to 8 years. before you ask other companies do the same even Toyota now with the new turbo junk. We usually open up or competitors engines and see what we can rivers engineer or learn from )non-patented) Sooo… sorry 😢 (power train engineer in one of the big American three)
As design engineer, just listening to this makes me want to go work for Kevin. Seems like a genuine guy. Really appreciated the discussion on the 2.7 L and how in depth it was. Happy to hear that the oil pan is being changed to aluminum. Plastic can be great, but typically suffers from creep, particularly in high temp/cyclic situations no matter how good it is.
I agree with you on the plastics because as a firefighter, my face piece is mostly plastic and it’s definitely seen some heat. I do feel like the technology is there to make plastics withstand a lot. Idk if this would carry over to the automotive side of things though 🤷🏾♂️
As a lube tech, I absolutely hated any engine with the plastic pan. They all seem to spew oil everywhere but in the oil drain bucket. I was pleasantly surprised to see the new models with 2.7 turbo have a metal pan.
Kevin is such a gem. GM is super lucky to have a lead engineer with so much passion and the ability to communicate his ideas as effectively as he does. Great interview and thanks for sharing.
Kevin is an awesome guy. This is exactly the right thing to do to get people to understand this is a fantastic engine. Excellent video, I already have the 2.7 and people laugh at me for it, I absolutely love it. I appreciate the time Kevin takes to put out the details and I also like to see when a person is excited about their work and being able to show it off. I appreciate it Kevin and I love your engine.
@@goodguysinc. No, a 3-cylinder GEO plastic engine would be the worst possible engine in a truck. That said, the timing chain and plastic guides on this one may be the Achilles Heel that makes the rest of the engine's engineering somewhat beside the point. It looks exactly like the cheesy, thin, zero-redundancy design that has left many a Chevy vehicle in the shop for expensive repairs over the last decade-plus.
@@ericthompson3551 there’s people on the forums with over 200,000 miles already. Typical fluid changes and plugs was all they needed. It’s been out for over 5 years already.
I've had the privilege of owning a wide range of vehicles, from several big block GM, to German luxury sports cars and THIS 2.7LI4T ranks among the top in terms of performance (2023 Colorado ZR2). Longevity is to be determined, however, having researched this engine extensively I am very confident GM has developed and employed a world class product here. Hats off, Sir!
Great interview. The 2.7 on my 23 Sierra 1500 definitely drives like a much larger engine. Doesn't break a sweat whether on the highway or curvy mountain roads. Coming from a Denali 6.2 engine a few years ago, I was hesitant about getting the 2.7 turbo but after watchin this video I pulled the trigger and couldn't be happier. The 2.7 has made a believer out of me.. thanks for sharing. And thanks to Kevin Luchansky for designing such a great motor.
Is was 11 months ago. I’ve been wondering if the 2.7 turbo max is a good or bad engine. Just wondering thinking about getting one at the end of the year.
It comes with an air oil separator from the factory. Doesn’t need an aftermarket solution for the carbo buildup problem if it was addressed by the OEM as it was in this case.
Thanks for setting up this interview, Tim. Kevin did a nice job highlighting the key attributes of the 2.7L. It would be smart for Chevrolet marketing to integrate that in their ads, website, online brochures, etc. It's interesting too that the HO version is more than just a special tune of the base engine. The added structure to the block is impressive.
The more I learn about the 2.7, the better I feel about my Silverado. It's exciting to hear an engineer talk about his racing experience rather than just book learning. Kevin has octane in his veins.
@@goodguysinc.They’ve been out for about 5 years, I’ve seen where people haul heavy loads with this engine in the Silverados and they have over 100k miles and no problems! A lot of thought went into this motor!
Simply one of the best interviews and explanations I've ever watched. Kevin, you are very good at explaining complexity in understandable terms. Tim, you had stellar questions tee'd up. I'd be remiss if I didn't say this video is heavily tilting me to the Canyon application.
This is the best video I’ve seen explaining how much engineering went into the 2.7. I’ve owned a 2021 Silverado with the 2.7 and now a 2023 with the high output. They have exceeded my expectations.
I’ve been able to drive multiple Silverados with the 2.7 both towing and regular driving and it really is quite good. I’ve never had complaints from any of my customers and especially towing, I’d pick the 2.7 over the 5.3 all day. If you haven’t driven it, I’d highly suggest you do because it’s fun. I actually think it’s a shame it’s not available in the LTZ and High Country as well because that would be a great engine at much lower cost and weight.
@@gearhead996 especially with the rebates right now specifically for that engine, it’s the most cost effective way to go too. It’ll sound different, but if you think of how it actually drives, you won’t care.
@@alanmorrison3598 I’d be willing to bet money it will. I’ve talked to engineers on testing reliability during production and the 2.7 was one of the most reliable engines they’ve ever tested. It was built to be a truck engine for sure, not a “eco turbo 4 cylinder.
Im interested in this outcome. What motivated the smaller engines is still a question, because really, can a small engine last? Especially, if you Turbo a small engine, will it wear out sooner? Can it mitigate absorbtion and dissipation of heat and withstand extremes in freezing temps? Will the gaskets go out sooner from warpage? Im skeptical. Very.
Thank you for all your explanations about how and why a turbo 4 cylinder. I was skeptical but will have to give it a try. I have 280,000 miles on my 1997 CK 1500 with a 4.3 L V6 and still daily drive it. I’m all about efficiency. Thank you.
That motor has got one hell of a crazy ass cam and along with the electric controllers on the fuel injectors from 4 cylinders down to 2 cylinders and that motor can still maintain normal driving status, that is some crazy intelligence, apparently it all works
Being a Ford man for all my life. I have love the Colorado for years. Maybe the Ranger Raptor will change my opinion on what truck I like? The Ford 2.3 is small and the early blocks cracked between the bores at the top of the block. I appreciate all the engineering GM put into this design. I will push back on the water cooled turbo. Ford went with water cooled turbos on 1985 on most 2.3s. Chrysler changed over around the same time. The big diesel took forever to upgrade to water cooled. I do feel this is best turbo 4 cylinder engine for durability out there right now. As a Ford forever guy it's not easy to admit. As a engine building, it's an honest opinion. Great job.
The 2.7 ford is a good engine, not perfect but pretty good. The 2.7 chevy, it's yet to be seen. The short block is fine, I have no qualms about the block/crank/rods/pistons. It's all the complexity of systems that will the weak link after 100k miles.
I have a 2024 1500 WT with the 2.7. It very much reminds me of the old 1984 F-250 I drove as a landscape/plow truck in the North East. The Ford had the 460 V8. I enjoy this little motor. It does not feel little.
Really appreciate Kevin Luchansky’s very informative presentation. Some of my fears have been alleviated. Really liked the comparison to the 8 liter big block. I hope this 2.7 liter is long lasting.
I thought Kevin did a real good job on this interview, really making things quite understandable. One concern that I continue to have with the GM 2.7 is that there doesn't seem to be any real -world fuel economy gain over the 5.3. Also, the Ford F150 2wd 2.7 V6 Ecoboost is EPA rated at 20 city/26 hwy., while the GM's are rated at 19 city/22 hwy. I was really hoping for better mpg numbers from GM on this engine. Having said that, I am a lot more concerned with durability in an engine than I am in fuel economy, and at this point, my confidence in the durability of this engine has increased substantially.
Mpg depends on how it’s driven, I have a 22 Trailboss with the 2.7, so an extra 2” lift, no front chin spoiler and heavy duratracs tires all from the factory none of which helps mpg. The estimated mpg on the sticker is 16mpg city, 17 combined and 18mpg hwy, I consistently get better than all of those city driving and have seen a best of 24.8 but my typical hwy mpg traveling 70-75 is about 22-23. If my truck was a custom or regular Lt with regular tires, chin spoiler etc I think I’d be seeing an out 2-3 mpg better under the same driving conditions. My truck is still breaking in, I only have 1600 miles thus far. Most who test drive these don’t drive the truck far enough to get an accurate read on mpg.
I have a 22.5 and i tow a 7.5x14x7 enclosed trailer with it. It does not like cold weather, it gets very thirsty, but i have no point of comparison. On warmer days, 5-7 °c and higher, it gets 11L/100km on highway at 120km/h and at 100km/h with the trailer it drops to around 20L/100km. I even shift in overdrive and revs 1500rpm with the trailer wich is pretty amazing, it takes a LOT of torque to achieve that. Before my 2.7, i had a gmc canyon diesel, and on warmer days, with the same trailer, i was averaging 16L/100km. So, using 20L/100km, going from diesel to gasoline while having a bigger, heavier truck, is very good i think. City driving i do 12.5-13.5L/100km. But of course, it's mostly about the driver.
@@thomasmcghee2468 when the engine, oil and transmission are not up to temperature, it's thirsty. Since the transmission oil is made to run at 95°c, i'm pretty sure it is quite thick below 20-30°c, even worse in freezing temperatures.
Pretty simple physics. It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate and maintain speed--what type of engine delivers it is kind of secondary. So, if a driver drives a turbocharged engine to get the same acceleration and speed maintenance as the driver would get with a V8, the vehicle is pretty much going to get V8 fuel economy. As the all-too-true joke about the Ford Ecoboost engine says, "You can get 'eco' or you can get 'boost,' but you aren't going to get both at the same time."
Great video, I am excited about this truck! After seeing TFL's video and now this one I am impressed by Mr. Luchansky's knowledge and willingness to answer these questions. Great insight!
I loved this video and the depth of knowledge. I'm on a waitlist for a 2023 ZR2 order and seeing the robustness and thoughtful design of this motor has me even more excited knowing that this truck should have a very long life ahead of it. I've been looking into what people with previous gen ZR2 typically do for mods and it seems like chevy really addressed a lot of the complaints of the previous gen, including being a little under powered and a revised transmission. I've never been a huge chevy fan but I think that they nailed it with the new colorado!
I think what we have learned over the years is yes, you can "match" the power of the big block but over time, the larger, simpler engine will continue to perform, will cost less to maintain and in 20 years, parts availability of the small engine will be nil. Most trucks will get abused, longevity will be a problem. Ford has experienced that with the eco boost.
Before this I was scratching my head about why the 6-cylinder engine was dropped. Kevin made an excellent job describing the why's and listing the benefits.
Yet the fuel economy is worse. Kevin would have a much stronger case if the fuel economy was 15-25% better. Instead it has lower EPA ratings than the V6 colorado even with 2 less cylinders, less parasitic losses & the ability to run on 2 cylinders.
@@EBIndyIt's not worse. Instead just slightly better. You mentioned the Colorado but I have 2 Silverados, A 2015 with the 4.3 and a 23 with the 2.7. With pretty even city/highway I've always been around 19 mpgs with the 4.3. With 2.7 I'm at about 2O. I feel like Turbos are all about how you drive them. They are quick and fun and you naturally want to feel that boost but if you drive it like that your mpgs are going to drop.
Thank you Tim and Kevin, this was a wonderful presentation. The extra webbing on the block, the ladder frame on the low end, and the extra cooling jacket with an electronic water pump. Each one of those upgrades over even turbos from 5 years ago, will greatly enhance durability and reduce cylinder head warping. I love the water-cooled turbine spindle, I remember all too well the days when you would park after a spirited run and have to idle the engine a while to keep the oil from coking around the bearings. (Replaced two turbos in a 900 Saab Turbo from oil coking and shearing the turbine shaft) Thank you -- excellent vid. Now my next question is -- do you make a marine version of this engine -- 454 performance out of a 2.7. Perfect for I/Os and V drives. 🙂🚤
Excellent and very educational video Tim! It's really nice to get such details from the chief engineer. It has certainly got me interested as my next truck is going to be midsize.
I just got a 24 Custom 2.7l Turbo for my first truck! im so glad i could get all the features i need and 4 x 4 with the same towing capacity as the v8 models. I have been loving Every moment of driving this truck
This is awesome info. Hat's off to Kevin. I just bought a Colorado Trail Boss with the trailering package. 7,700lbs towing with a "midsize" truck is nuts!!!
I have 2 problems with my 2023 Siverado Trail Boss, one is the volume cuts out on all sources on the interface while in use all of a sudden. The second is the steering column cover keeps coming apart when you drop it in drive. The dealer knows about these problems and is going to work on them for me. Other than that, the 2.7 has plenty of power and speed. My old truck was a 2008 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi in which I towed a large utility trailer packed with tools and materials for contracting. I was skeptical of buying this truck but am so far pleasantly surprised. I didn't buy this to work out of other than traveling, towing a camper, boat and sure it will do the job! Gas mileage so far has been stellar compared to the Ram.
General motors people, I found my answer to how the turbo intake air breather system works, on some of the other videos I've been looking at it this time, and didn't realize it, this video just showed me, now I see how the engine gets it's life breathing wind,
The 4.3, though great, was old and in-efficient. Adding more power to it wouldn't fix the efficiency problem. If you want to blame someone blame the EPA. As much as people dislike GM at times they have to follow all of the bs the EPA tells them to.
@@guardrail2897 I'm just relaying what I've read in recent years. That's the main excuse they give when they stop making proven engines that have been made for years. The EPA sticks their nose where it doesn't belong as always and raises the bar even higher for efficiency requirements. They're coming up with unrealistic efficiency requirements to slowly boot combustion engines off the market and to force people into EV's so they have more control over your vehicle than they already have now. But those of us who are capable of thinking on our own don't want EV's and aren't drinking the government kool-aid.
I will wait a couple of years before even thinking about purchasing a vehicle with this engines. I’m betting that there will be turbo issues in the 60-80,000 mile range if they are towing a heavy trailer or a pontoon that has a lot of window resistance !
Great video, just purchased a 2023 Colorado LT so it was nice to see all the engineering that went into the 2.7 turbo engine. I just purchased it so haven’t done anything yet but city and hwy driving but will be pulling my fishing boat (2000 lb) which this engine should handle effortlessly. Thanks for this information.
7:15 He mentions a 4 speed and 4:11 gears. GM uses 4:10 gear ratio. Yes, it like splitting hairs. Also, as far as I recall, the 8.1 in a Silverado was also mated to the 5 or 6 speed Allison transmission… the same as what the Duramax of that era used.
Tim / Kevin just watch on RUclips on my TV. Tim I watch all the time and will be ordering my Cayon AT4X at the end of Oct hoping the 2025 are available. But wanted to say this has to be the best video I have seen very informational. One thing I got is oil to use 5w - 30 with the 2.7 thanks watched it twice so I could take notes. This help finalize my choice.
One question...if I am buying a 22' or newer Silverado 2.7, how do I know if it is the l3b or the new ho refreshed engine? There seems to be a lot of grey area with the updated engine
I'll request this engine in my next truck for work. I've had no issues with my past 2 5.3s, but I love a turbo engine. The power in the previous iteration wasn't on par with the 5.3 but now it is more appealing.
If they really want to exceed my expectations, they would make a 4.2L direct injected turbo inline 6 cylinder similar in design to that 2.7 turbo 4 cylinder.
I had a 2019 ZR2 with the issue but they fixed it in one hour with a trans flush and newly engineered trans fluid. Drove it for another 20K after that and the problem was completely gone. Then I traded into a new 2022 ZR2 and the transmission was flawless from the start and still is perfect. I'll have my 2023 ZR2 in about 2 months and I'm not even slightly worried about the transmission as they've made it even better since then and all the review guys are saying it's beautifully paired with the 2.7. Just my thoughts.
Sure did, about 25 minutes of it. Then watched the last 5 and got my answer. I'm glad tim asked because I posted question on his previous 2.7 turbo vid. This sounds like an interesting engine. Not sure i like cylinder deactivation on a 4 cylinder. I hope gm learned their lesson from the lifter problems related to cylinder deactivation they're having with the 6.2.
@PickupTruck Plus SUV Talk: Excellent interview, learned a lot. Things I would love to know… he stated the output approaches that of the big block 8.1 but he did not address the life expectancy of the 2.7 which is likely less than the 8.1 due to the pressure and compression. Also, what are the oil change intervals? You discussed the viscosity which is important but if owners go 10k between changes, I would have serious concern about engine life.
Life expectancy is an interesting question and every automaker hides behidn the "life of the engine" statement. Why? Liability. If he said 150,000 miles and 10 years, then you'd hold them accountable. If he said 300,000 miles and 20 years, then you'd have high expectations meaning if you had an issue early on, you'd be pissed. There really is no way for them to answer that question. As for the life expectancy vs the 8.1L, I'd actually go with the 2.7L laster longer. Why? New technology, new engineering and new ways to develop engines. The old way was build hundreds, tear them apart and try to figure out what failed. Now they can use new technology to cut out problems before they come up and they do a MUCH better job torture testing engines than they used to. Oil change intervals are an interesting topic. It used to be 6 months or 3k miles and now it is 5 years going on 10 years. This is due to engine design and new oil viscosity. Now, what about the Colorado? There is no real mileage interval on Chevy vehicles. Case in point, the Chevy Silverado I bought for a long-term review and the recent Trailblazer we bought for the family don't have an oil change interval. Instead, they have a oil life percentage gauge which takes into account driving habits. So, if you tow more, drive fast everywhere and really are aggressive with the truck, then you change your oil more often. If you don't do those things, you don't have to change your oil as often. As the industry moves forward, I think we are going to start seeing more and more brands switch to oil life indicators rather than miles. It just makes more sense.
@@Pickuptrucktalk Oil change intervals are an interesting topic. It used to be 6 months or 3k miles and now it is "5 years going on 10 years". "5 years going on 10 years" oil change intervals maybe a little long.
@@Pickuptrucktalk it’s pretty hard to argue the durability of the old Chevy Big-Blocks. I always said what a Small-Block would do on the weekends, a Big-Block would do all-day, every day, for 200k miles. Your guest even states that they knew the duty-cycle for this engine going in. Towing is one thing. Snowplows and dump bodies are another. Wonder if they’ve considered testing it in a “work truck”?
@@GoFastGator You can’t use a snowplow with a small displacement turbo engine. The plow blocks too much air coming into the engine. Those jobs of hauling or plowing snow are for HD trucks, not this one.
@@Pickuptrucktalk so while the 2.7 could be reasonably expected to last 200k miles in a truck used primarily as personal transportation, saying it’s as durable or more so than the 8.1, is more than a little optimistic given that the 8.1 (and the other big-blocks before it) has demonstrated similar lifespan in much, much tougher applications.
Ive got two 4 bangers.. 1, my kia rio.. and my GMC Sierra.. The GMC plants me in my seat almost instantly.. The rio, not even a comparison. Just like the rest of tech and engineering, everything gets smaller and more efficient as innovation progresses
Well thanks Tim for asking the question about the cylinder deactivation I understand it’s efficient but GM has difficulties in that area my 6.2liter and the lifters have been changed three times in less than 60,000 miles But I get it thanks for helpful insight
People complaining about the AFM dont know anything about engines. The 2.7 is DOHC, meaning it doesnt have lifters, which was the problem with AFM in the V8s.
I don't think anyone doubts the power and efficiency of turbo 4s, it's just reliability that scares everyone. But I think the best reasoning I heard is from the GM haters, saying it couldn't be worse than the 8 speed transmissions, or 6L80e transmissions, or the lifters on the early cylinder shut off 5.3's.
Got a 2023 Chevy Colorado trail boss. Was great til 40k miles. Have had transmission issues since. Shifting rough. Misfiring off idle. Auto start stop coming out of it very rough. GMC dealer said the wiring harness failed. Changed that. Fixed nothing. Still having issues They can’t figure it out. Truck runs fine outside of that. Very odd. Curious about the gas. I’ve always used 91 premium in my trucks. They’ve always ran better. But maybe with this one as Kevin stated 87 is the way to go. However I live in Utah and that’s not an option. We have 91/88/85 lol Maybe 88 Think I’ll try that direction a few fill ups and see if it helps. Might be too little too late
One major point will be cost of ownership over the life of the engines between the V6 the 2.7T and the big block they were talking about. I plan on going all in on the 2023 Elevation AWD 0 other upgrades upgraded paint thats it and trading in a 2022 Buick envison St like 3,600 miles on it hopefully I don't get bent over lol.
My new work truck is a 2024 Colorado with the 2.7 Turbomax. It's a great ruck and engine combo with great power and torque at low RPM. Really fun to drive and looks solidly built.
Kevin you are a gem and I hope this engine runs as long as it does strong..but if history and common sense serve, it won't! By the way, the Vega was the original application for the old iron head, aluminum block SOHC 2.3l disaster GM released back in 1971, not the Monza./ The Monza, unfortunately also sported this engine. Anyway, GM's 5.3l V8 with AFM has had lifter/cam issues as I'm sure you are aware. Class action suit is on going. Your turbo eco-tec engines are a mess. Then there's the "Hemi-tick" with Chysler/Stalantis. Ford's eco-boost has also been plagued with issues to numerous to mention. The new Toyota Tundra twin turbo V6 has waste gate issues! Everyone seems to have issues with phasers, phaser solenoids etc. having to do with VVT. By the way my 1984 Dodge 32:00 Daytona Turbo had a oil fed and liquid cooled turbo but the waste gate linkage failed at about 100k. Kevin don't be discouraged but I really wish you had taken the V6 and incorporated all the great ideas other than the turbo from this 2.7l 4 banger and optimized the engine as best you could for performance and the longest life possible. 4 cylinder engines even with balance shafts, vacuum motor mounts and every NVH feature you can throw at them still have the sound of a 4 banger..No getting around it. What percentage of your customers use their vehicles for rock climbing? Will the 2.7l turbo really deliver better mileage than an NA V6 if driven hard? Will it last longer? I doubt it. GM over the decades, has a bad habit of using it's customers for the final endurance test as do other makes but not to the same extent.
Thanks Tim. How long before we are using typewriter oil to run these engines? I know it’s not as simple as oil weight/viscosity, but wow, they are asking a lot of a liquid. 🤔
I can't help but think that GM's investment in Saab over 25 years ago is paying dividends still. The B235R, developed in the late '90s, and fielded into the late 2000's, could produce 305 HP and 420Nm of torque from 2.3L of displacement from a "square" (90/90mm stroke/bore) design, port injection and a pretty simple turbo setup. Boost hits pretty low and torque holds out to extra-legal speeds in most situations and not in a tire-shredding way. It's a just a goodly shove down the road towards Officer Friendly's Performance Award Book, if you let things get blurry. I just hope that all the tech keeps together. With the B235s you have ignition module issues (they died roasting on the top of the head) and spark plugs tended to wear out faster when you spent a lot of time in ~+1atm boost territory. I personally see similar maintenance issues with other +psi engines like VAG's 2.0T series. It's great technology but power density will test every single part over time. As long as the engineers can find the weaknesses as they continue to boost power density, we're all in for some good rides...
The tech is very impressive, but how about the most important feature, which is reliability? Sure you can take a small displacement engine and pump it up with power.....but how long is it going to last?
I like the benefits of the turbos just a little hesitant on the durability and reliability. Seems like ford has largely worked out bugs in the 3.5. I'm seeing people with 200k miles on the 3.5. The gm 2.7 seems reliable. Curious about durability. How many miles to people have on these now.
Reliability sucks with the 2.7 I have put 67k on mine multiple trips to the service department now cylinder 3 is misfiring and trans issues stay far away from it!!!!!
At the end of the day its forced induction and forced induction is known to “Decrease” an engines lifespan. You can throw how many kilograms of extra aluminum to make the block stronger for the extra power/stress from a turbo but after its all said and done the internals will only last so long. Heat, more pressure and extra stress on the internals will succumb at the end. Another engine with gms failed AfM/DOD lifters. Since 2019 all the new stuff that has these the failure rate is higher.
@@ALMX5DP No because it is easier to strengthen the internals of a Diesel engine to support a turbo versus a gas engine (among a list of other differences).
@@bobbbobb4663 what makes a diesel easier to strengthen? Diesels typically use cast iron blocks, but they also typically run higher boost pressures as well right?
This engine technology is great! Love this engine. I have the 3.5L Ecoboost and love it for towing and daily driving. It'd be great to see a deep dive on Ford's 2.7L and/or 3.5L Ecoboost engines. Thanks Tim!
I like a lot about this engine. The only thing that I don't like is lack if sealing surface between cylinders. This looks like a high stress area for head gaskets to blow out. I would like to hear what the engineer has to say about loading the head gasket compared to other engines.
this really amuses me that both teams for the 3.0 LM2 and the 2.7 L3B where aimed in the same path of pushing the envelope but in very different manners! i find most funny is that LM2 went mechanical water pump with the diverter valve and the L3B has the electric water pump instead, 2 sides to the same problem of temperature management answered differently to the same degree of success
I almost bought a Silverado with this engine. The turbo having a dual flow path is a good thing to me. But a VGT feature for the engine breaking would be a plus for mountain driving and towing. The lack of real 4wd was the deal breaker for me.
@@Brutemandave Call me cheap. But I usually buy the more basic vehicles. Even though my credit score and income qualify me to buy any vehicle on the lot. I consider 4wd something a more basic item a vehicle should have available. I don't need or want remote start, leather seats, or many other options. 4wd I only use once in a while, and maybe for only a few feet. But I need it when I need it. I will not pay $40k, $50k or $60k for a vehicle without it.
@@Day-dreamer488 I think he means "real" as in terms of engaging the 4wd with manual levers instead of electric push buttons. Other than that the 4wd on my 2020 Silverado seems real to me. It hates turning into parking spots at low speeds if you don't give it enough throttle. You can feel the wheel chatter of the lockers being engaged. So I don't know how much more "real" you can get other than manual engagement for everything.
I would think that the protection provided by the oil is more of a contributing factor in engine protection from wear rather than the parts themselves.
You can run additives from the start. GM doesn’t recommend them unless you are using poor diesel fuel. You can tune it, nothing from GM. Just have to find a tuner.
Every brand has switched to higher pressure fuel injectors which is atomizing all the fuel in the combustion chamber making carbon build up a concern from the past.
I've driven this engine plenty of times. It does make good torque, but you definitely feel the higher RPM torque drop off. You really don't want to Rev this engine past 4500rpm. It's damn near a diesel in power delivery.
Silly to compare an 8100, to a 2.7, the 8100 was not available in any platform smaller than a 2500 HD, and the 2.7 isn't available in any 2500 HD or larger, because it isn't enough engine. Also, the 8100 can trace its roots all the way back to 1966.
I loved hearing this engineer talk about the 2.7L. The new Colorado/Canyon really seem to be my dream truck. The problem is there are so many issues with these new trucks. Roof dents with little pressure (can't go thru a car wash) Pieces are falling off. Electronic glitches. Emergency braking for no reason. Windshield not installed properly. List goes on. I'm pulling for GM and these trucks but not very encouraging overall so far...
4 cylinder engine in a full-sized pickup truck that also deactivates 2 cylinders by design. Wonderful, a 1.35L twin moving a truck - what could possibly go wrong with that? Then to learn the fuel economy is no better than the 5.3L LS in my 2000 Sierra 1500 Z71! It passes emissions, that's about it...
Hi, i know my manual says 87 is minimal required, but should i run plus or 93 octane? I am planning to keep my 2023 2.7 1500 silverado for a long time???
So this torque chart suggest the 2.7 turbo is making just shy of 600 pounds of torque, the 2.8 durmax made 500 pounds and the 3.6 gas v6 made just shy of 400 pounds of torque. It appears something is wrong with the graph.
Check out this video for more on 5 good/bad and 1 maybe thing about the Chevy Colorado: ruclips.net/video/uRZLpxWE-4k/видео.html
Awesome interview thanks Tim and Kevin! I don't know how I didn't catch this one sooner.
I'm now curious if my 2023 ZR2 will have the aluminum oil pan, as Kevin says here they'll be implementing that change over the next year or so and my ZR2 has a build date of July 15th.
Anyway, I'm not worried about this 2.7 engine at all and I'm excited to feel the 430 torque👍🏻
Just sell it after 70k miles or dig deep into your wallet. Check out the lawsuit's already! @@joalyincontroly4379
I've watched a couple of interviews with Kevin Luchansky, and the unasked question that we GM 2.7l turbomax owners are still waiting to hear is: "Kevin, after GM's 2.7l engine team ran this engine for hundreds (or thousands) of hours through all kinds of stress tests, load tests, & extreme driving simulations and then disassembled the engine to examine wear on the engine parts, was there any issue with carbonization from the direct injection ports?"
@@PineMountain981 Interesting question. I mean, if there were issues, GM would have used port injection to fix that.
I can tell you talking with multiple engineers at different brands that they all think the carbon build-up issue as the most over blown issue online today. None of them see it as an issue and even brands like Ford and Toyota with direct and port injection don't advertise those are being a solution to carbon build-up. It is more of yeah, it helps a little.
@@Pickuptrucktalk It would be great if you could email or phone Kevin and ask him. In researching this 2.7l gas engine on youtube and in automobile forums, this is the #1 potential concern & unknown question I see listed by mechanics and owners in the comment sections: will the direct injection ports cause serious internal carbonization buildup by 60k-90k-120k miles?
20,000 miles down on my 23 Colorado with the HO tune. Several roadtrips including towing 6000lbs from Florida to Colorado in 2 days. The engine is easily a highlight of the truck. Long 2% grades pulling a trailer through Kansas into a strong headwind and the engine sat at 2300rpm at 75mph. Zero power concerns. Loving it so far and I probably run it harder than the typical user. Lots of off-road, uphill on dirt, long roadtrips, daily driving in a hill heavy high elevation area, and the l3b just eats it all up without issues.
Get you an oil catch can for that engine. You’ll thank me later.
Any direct injection engine needs one unless it has TPI as well
It comes with an air oil separator from the factory.
I'm convinced engine designers should be required to do an internship in an auto repair shop for a minimium of 2 years.
All engineers should be a hands on mechanical tech for Min of two years for a degree.
Before non-engineers comment on engineer's design, they should be fully versed in the insane constraints and limitations, especially automotive designers, are under. @@44coma
Good idea
I’m an automotive engineer don’t tell them I told you this, but we (employer) really don’t care. Truck blows up after the warranty. To be honest. Most cars nowadays. Have a 10 year expiration date. The people I work with every day with the smartest people I know from mechanics to former Dakar , and Baja engineers,. Trust me we can make a reliable engine Toyota was doing it back in the 2000s. There’s been multiple cases where through long-term testing we have found multiple issues but since the issues we found “most likely” happen over 200,000 miles we purposely did nothing. our customer base (likely used) who drives cars not far into the future. Don’t have the money to buy a new products so we don’t care what they think about us. And the customer basis I that afford a new truck will have a perfectly problem with the truck for 6 to 8 years. before you ask other companies do the same even Toyota now with the new turbo junk. We usually open up or competitors engines and see what we can rivers engineer or learn from )non-patented) Sooo… sorry 😢 (power train engineer in one of the big American three)
@@MLG-zu2hgno pride in your work- great to know
As design engineer, just listening to this makes me want to go work for Kevin. Seems like a genuine guy. Really appreciated the discussion on the 2.7 L and how in depth it was. Happy to hear that the oil pan is being changed to aluminum. Plastic can be great, but typically suffers from creep, particularly in high temp/cyclic situations no matter how good it is.
I agree with you on the plastics because as a firefighter, my face piece is mostly plastic and it’s definitely seen some heat. I do feel like the technology is there to make plastics withstand a lot. Idk if this would carry over to the automotive side of things though 🤷🏾♂️
As a lube tech, I absolutely hated any engine with the plastic pan. They all seem to spew oil everywhere but in the oil drain bucket. I was pleasantly surprised to see the new models with 2.7 turbo have a metal pan.
Not at the price point to sell an affordable car and I work on airplanes for a living the quality control won't be there on cars@@atfireman4175
Kevin is such a gem. GM is super lucky to have a lead engineer with so much passion and the ability to communicate his ideas as effectively as he does. Great interview and thanks for sharing.
☝ Kevin's other anonymous account.
LOL
No crapy anemic engine’s and problematic turbo’s for me.
Agree 💯
@@wilmarbarrick3194 That made me Lol thanks😂
Kevin is an awesome guy. This is exactly the right thing to do to get people to understand this is a fantastic engine. Excellent video, I already have the 2.7 and people laugh at me for it, I absolutely love it. I appreciate the time Kevin takes to put out the details and I also like to see when a person is excited about their work and being able to show it off. I appreciate it Kevin and I love your engine.
This is the worst engine possible in a truck
@@goodguysinc. No, a 3-cylinder GEO plastic engine would be the worst possible engine in a truck. That said, the timing chain and plastic guides on this one may be the Achilles Heel that makes the rest of the engine's engineering somewhat beside the point. It looks exactly like the cheesy, thin, zero-redundancy design that has left many a Chevy vehicle in the shop for expensive repairs over the last decade-plus.
Let us know how much you love it in 5 years and 100,000 miles. Most people love their new vehicle.
@@ericthompson3551 there’s people on the forums with over 200,000 miles already. Typical fluid changes and plugs was all they needed. It’s been out for over 5 years already.
Great video - huge win to get an OEM engineer to explain things in this level of detail. MUCH appreciated!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I've had the privilege of owning a wide range of vehicles, from several big block GM, to German luxury sports cars and THIS 2.7LI4T ranks among the top in terms of performance (2023 Colorado ZR2).
Longevity is to be determined, however, having researched this engine extensively I am very confident GM has developed and employed a world class product here. Hats off, Sir!
This engine will be a great one! This is coming from a Ford guy.
Great interview. The 2.7 on my 23 Sierra 1500 definitely drives like a much larger engine. Doesn't break a sweat whether on the highway or curvy mountain roads. Coming from a Denali 6.2 engine a few years ago, I was hesitant about getting the 2.7 turbo but after watchin this video I pulled the trigger and couldn't be happier. The 2.7 has made a believer out of me.. thanks for sharing. And thanks to Kevin Luchansky for designing such a great motor.
Is was 11 months ago. I’ve been wondering if the 2.7 turbo max is a good or bad engine. Just wondering thinking about getting one at the end of the year.
Your turdo is sweating about 18,000 rpm’s . Everything under the hood is exposed to more heat.
@@ericthompson3551Truck runs fine. I run a fleet of them. Almost always max payload. No issues
What is you MPG?
Great video on the 2.7L Turbo. Only thing I would of loved to hear on this vid was Direct Port Injection. Carbon build up and maintenance.
I do no understand not having dual port injection either. Carbon build up is not a big deal though, you just need to have it serviced, cleaned at 75k
@@calebniederhofer6529agree but it would still be best to include port injection so you never need to worry about it
@@jpete3027666 I am a big fan of Fords 2.7L and own that myself.
It comes with an air oil separator from the factory. Doesn’t need an aftermarket solution for the carbo buildup problem if it was addressed by the OEM as it was in this case.
Thanks for setting up this interview, Tim. Kevin did a nice job highlighting the key attributes of the 2.7L. It would be smart for Chevrolet marketing to integrate that in their ads, website, online brochures, etc.
It's interesting too that the HO version is more than just a special tune of the base engine. The added structure to the block is impressive.
GM definitely did a nice job with this engine. The contractor remodeling our house has one of these in a Silverado and he absolutely loves it.
The more I learn about the 2.7, the better I feel about my Silverado. It's exciting to hear an engineer talk about his racing experience rather than just book learning. Kevin has octane in his veins.
Have fun having it repaired prematurely 😂
@@goodguysinc.They’ve been out for about 5 years, I’ve seen where people haul heavy loads with this engine in the Silverados and they have over 100k miles and no problems! A lot of thought went into this motor!
@@jimmycline4778 You're wasting your time on a troll.
Simply one of the best interviews and explanations I've ever watched. Kevin, you are very good at explaining complexity in understandable terms. Tim, you had stellar questions tee'd up. I'd be remiss if I didn't say this video is heavily tilting me to the Canyon application.
This GM 2.7 Turbo is like straight from a dream that I had from 1986 as to what the ideal 1/2 ton truck engine should be.
This is the best video I’ve seen explaining how much engineering went into the 2.7. I’ve owned a 2021 Silverado with the 2.7 and now a 2023 with the high output. They have exceeded my expectations.
Do you feel a big difference between the 2021 and 2023? Any difference in mpg?
Yes, the 2023 is quieter and shifts smoother. It also seems to have a little more boost than my 2021. Haven’t noticed much difference in MPG
@@jconatyjr must have low expectations
I like this dude. An engineer who can talk in layman’s terms. Give this guy a raise!
I’ve been able to drive multiple Silverados with the 2.7 both towing and regular driving and it really is quite good. I’ve never had complaints from any of my customers and especially towing, I’d pick the 2.7 over the 5.3 all day. If you haven’t driven it, I’d highly suggest you do because it’s fun. I actually think it’s a shame it’s not available in the LTZ and High Country as well because that would be a great engine at much lower cost and weight.
Thanks for your input. I'm considering a Silverado with this engine.
@@gearhead996 especially with the rebates right now specifically for that engine, it’s the most cost effective way to go too. It’ll sound different, but if you think of how it actually drives, you won’t care.
Will the 2.7 turbo go 250k? I doubt it. I have a 5.3 2013 Silverado and Tahoe. Love this engine if the AFM was gone although as yet no issues.
@@alanmorrison3598 I’d be willing to bet money it will. I’ve talked to engineers on testing reliability during production and the 2.7 was one of the most reliable engines they’ve ever tested. It was built to be a truck engine for sure, not a “eco turbo 4 cylinder.
Im interested in this outcome. What motivated the smaller engines is still a question, because really, can a small engine last? Especially, if you Turbo a small engine, will it wear out sooner? Can it mitigate absorbtion and dissipation of heat and withstand extremes in freezing temps? Will the gaskets go out sooner from warpage? Im skeptical. Very.
Thank you for all your explanations about how and why a turbo 4 cylinder. I was skeptical but will have to give it a try. I have 280,000 miles on my 1997 CK 1500 with a 4.3 L V6 and still daily drive it. I’m all about efficiency.
Thank you.
That motor has got one hell of a crazy ass cam and along with the electric controllers on the fuel injectors from 4 cylinders down to 2 cylinders and that motor can still maintain normal driving status, that is some crazy intelligence, apparently it all works
Being a Ford man for all my life. I have love the Colorado for years. Maybe the Ranger Raptor will change my opinion on what truck I like? The Ford 2.3 is small and the early blocks cracked between the bores at the top of the block. I appreciate all the engineering GM put into this design.
I will push back on the water cooled turbo. Ford went with water cooled turbos on 1985 on most 2.3s. Chrysler changed over around the same time. The big diesel took forever to upgrade to water cooled.
I do feel this is best turbo 4 cylinder engine for durability out there right now. As a Ford forever guy it's not easy to admit. As a engine building, it's an honest opinion.
Great job.
The 2.7 ford is a good engine, not perfect but pretty good. The 2.7 chevy, it's yet to be seen. The short block is fine, I have no qualms about the block/crank/rods/pistons. It's all the complexity of systems that will the weak link after 100k miles.
I have a 2024 1500 WT with the 2.7. It very much reminds me of the old 1984 F-250 I drove as a landscape/plow truck in the North East. The Ford had the 460 V8. I enjoy this little motor. It does not feel little.
(Doesn't SOUND the same, of course.) :D
I’m sold on the 2.7 HO because of interviews with Kevin Luchansky.
Really appreciate Kevin Luchansky’s very informative presentation. Some of my fears have been alleviated. Really liked the comparison to the 8 liter big block.
I hope this 2.7 liter is long lasting.
I thought Kevin did a real good job on this interview, really making things quite understandable. One concern that I continue to have with the GM 2.7 is that there doesn't seem to be any real -world fuel economy gain over the 5.3. Also, the Ford F150 2wd 2.7 V6 Ecoboost is EPA rated at 20 city/26 hwy., while the GM's are rated at 19 city/22 hwy. I was really hoping for better mpg numbers from GM on this engine. Having said that, I am a lot more concerned with durability in an engine than I am in fuel economy, and at this point, my confidence in the durability of this engine has increased substantially.
Mpg depends on how it’s driven, I have a 22 Trailboss with the 2.7, so an extra 2” lift, no front chin spoiler and heavy duratracs tires all from the factory none of which helps mpg. The estimated mpg on the sticker is 16mpg city, 17 combined and 18mpg hwy, I consistently get better than all of those city driving and have seen a best of 24.8 but my typical hwy mpg traveling 70-75 is about 22-23. If my truck was a custom or regular Lt with regular tires, chin spoiler etc I think I’d be seeing an out 2-3 mpg better under the same driving conditions. My truck is still breaking in, I only have 1600 miles thus far. Most who test drive these don’t drive the truck far enough to get an accurate read on mpg.
I have a 22.5 and i tow a 7.5x14x7 enclosed trailer with it.
It does not like cold weather, it gets very thirsty, but i have no point of comparison.
On warmer days, 5-7 °c and higher, it gets 11L/100km on highway at 120km/h and at 100km/h with the trailer it drops to around 20L/100km. I even shift in overdrive and revs 1500rpm with the trailer wich is pretty amazing, it takes a LOT of torque to achieve that. Before my 2.7, i had a gmc canyon diesel, and on warmer days, with the same trailer, i was averaging 16L/100km. So, using 20L/100km, going from diesel to gasoline while having a bigger, heavier truck, is very good i think.
City driving i do 12.5-13.5L/100km. But of course, it's mostly about the driver.
@@ProbeGT2 I agree it’s thirsty in colder temps for sure
@@thomasmcghee2468 when the engine, oil and transmission are not up to temperature, it's thirsty. Since the transmission oil is made to run at 95°c, i'm pretty sure it is quite thick below 20-30°c, even worse in freezing temperatures.
Pretty simple physics. It takes a certain amount of energy to accelerate and maintain speed--what type of engine delivers it is kind of secondary. So, if a driver drives a turbocharged engine to get the same acceleration and speed maintenance as the driver would get with a V8, the vehicle is pretty much going to get V8 fuel economy. As the all-too-true joke about the Ford Ecoboost engine says, "You can get 'eco' or you can get 'boost,' but you aren't going to get both at the same time."
Great video, I am excited about this truck! After seeing TFL's video and now this one I am impressed by Mr. Luchansky's knowledge and willingness to answer these questions. Great insight!
I loved this video and the depth of knowledge. I'm on a waitlist for a 2023 ZR2 order and seeing the robustness and thoughtful design of this motor has me even more excited knowing that this truck should have a very long life ahead of it. I've been looking into what people with previous gen ZR2 typically do for mods and it seems like chevy really addressed a lot of the complaints of the previous gen, including being a little under powered and a revised transmission. I've never been a huge chevy fan but I think that they nailed it with the new colorado!
I think what we have learned over the years is yes, you can "match" the power of the big block but over time, the larger, simpler engine will continue to perform, will cost less to maintain and in 20 years, parts availability of the small engine will be nil. Most trucks will get abused, longevity will be a problem. Ford has experienced that with the eco boost.
Wish he would have addressed the potential carbon buildup from a direct injection engine such as this. Has GM done anything to mitigate this issue?
They did address it - the 2.7 comes with an air oil separator from the factory.
Before this I was scratching my head about why the 6-cylinder engine was dropped. Kevin made an excellent job describing the why's and listing the benefits.
Yet the fuel economy is worse.
Kevin would have a much stronger case if the fuel economy was 15-25% better. Instead it has lower EPA ratings than the V6 colorado even with 2 less cylinders, less parasitic losses & the ability to run on 2 cylinders.
@@EBIndyIt's not worse. Instead just slightly better. You mentioned the Colorado but I have 2 Silverados, A 2015 with the 4.3 and a 23 with the 2.7. With pretty even city/highway I've always been around 19 mpgs with the 4.3. With 2.7 I'm at about 2O. I feel like Turbos are all about how you drive them. They are quick and fun and you naturally want to feel that boost but if you drive it like that your mpgs are going to drop.
Thank you Tim and Kevin, this was a wonderful presentation.
The extra webbing on the block, the ladder frame on the low end, and the extra cooling jacket with an electronic water pump. Each one of those upgrades over even turbos from 5 years ago, will greatly enhance durability and reduce cylinder head warping. I love the water-cooled turbine spindle, I remember all too well the days when you would park after a spirited run and have to idle the engine a while to keep the oil from coking around the bearings. (Replaced two turbos in a 900 Saab Turbo from oil coking and shearing the turbine shaft)
Thank you -- excellent vid.
Now my next question is -- do you make a marine version of this engine -- 454 performance out of a 2.7. Perfect for I/Os and V drives. 🙂🚤
Excellent and very educational video Tim! It's really nice to get such details from the chief engineer. It has certainly got me interested as my next truck is going to be midsize.
I just got a 24 Custom 2.7l Turbo for my first truck! im so glad i could get all the features i need and 4 x 4 with the same towing capacity as the v8 models. I have been loving Every moment of driving this truck
also gotta love those turbo noises!
This is awesome info. Hat's off to Kevin. I just bought a Colorado Trail Boss with the trailering package. 7,700lbs towing with a "midsize" truck is nuts!!!
just purchased GMC Canyon 2024 2.7 turbo engine last week - - My canyon oil temperature sits around 216 - 226F when driving - is that normal?
I have 2 problems with my 2023 Siverado Trail Boss, one is the volume cuts out on all sources on the interface while in use all of a sudden. The second is the steering column cover keeps coming apart when you drop it in drive. The dealer knows about these problems and is going to work on them for me. Other than that, the 2.7 has plenty of power and speed. My old truck was a 2008 Ram 2500 5.7 Hemi in which I towed a large utility trailer packed with tools and materials for contracting. I was skeptical of buying this truck but am so far pleasantly surprised. I didn't buy this to work out of other than traveling, towing a camper, boat and sure it will do the job! Gas mileage so far has been stellar compared to the Ram.
General motors people, I found my answer to how the turbo intake air breather system works, on some of the other videos I've been looking at it this time, and didn't realize it, this video just showed me, now I see how the engine gets it's life breathing wind,
I just bought a 2023 Trail Boss with the 2.7, thank you for answering about the type of fuel to run in it. I have been wasting my money 😢
If you have shell Vpower around you, run that. No ethanol
Had one of the original 2.7’s and just picked up another. It’s a great engine and not at all like the 4 bangers of the past.
One tiny quibble for the gm engineer, my uncle bought a 2500 Sierra 4x4 in 2004 with the 8.1 and a 6 Speed Allison transmission, not the 4l80
GM should have stuck with the 4.3 and developed it with more power. By far it's the best motor they've built.
The 4.3, though great, was old and in-efficient. Adding more power to it wouldn't fix the efficiency problem. If you want to blame someone blame the EPA. As much as people dislike GM at times they have to follow all of the bs the EPA tells them to.
@@Slane583 It had better MPGs than the new 2.7 turbo 4 cyl.
@@guardrail2897 I'm just relaying what I've read in recent years. That's the main excuse they give when they stop making proven engines that have been made for years. The EPA sticks their nose where it doesn't belong as always and raises the bar even higher for efficiency requirements.
They're coming up with unrealistic efficiency requirements to slowly boot combustion engines off the market and to force people into EV's so they have more control over your vehicle than they already have now. But those of us who are capable of thinking on our own don't want EV's and aren't drinking the government kool-aid.
I will wait a couple of years before even thinking about purchasing a vehicle with this engines. I’m betting that there will be turbo issues in the 60-80,000 mile range if they are towing a heavy trailer or a pontoon that has a lot of window resistance !
They have been out since 2019 and ask any GM service tech about this 2.7 failures compared to the 5.3
Great video, just purchased a 2023 Colorado LT so it was nice to see all the engineering that went into the 2.7 turbo engine. I just purchased it so haven’t done anything yet but city and hwy driving but will be pulling my fishing boat (2000 lb) which this engine should handle effortlessly. Thanks for this information.
Loved this interview. Good video! What about this being a direct injection engine and the intake valves building up a ton of carbon?
7:15 He mentions a 4 speed and 4:11 gears. GM uses 4:10 gear ratio. Yes, it like splitting hairs.
Also, as far as I recall, the 8.1 in a Silverado was also mated to the 5 or 6 speed Allison transmission… the same as what the Duramax of that era used.
Tim / Kevin just watch on RUclips on my TV. Tim I watch all the time and will be ordering my Cayon AT4X at the end of Oct hoping the 2025 are available. But wanted to say this has to be the best video I have seen very informational. One thing I got is oil to use 5w - 30 with the 2.7 thanks watched it twice so I could take notes. This help finalize my choice.
One question...if I am buying a 22' or newer Silverado 2.7, how do I know if it is the l3b or the new ho refreshed engine? There seems to be a lot of grey area with the updated engine
I'll request this engine in my next truck for work. I've had no issues with my past 2 5.3s, but I love a turbo engine. The power in the previous iteration wasn't on par with the 5.3 but now it is more appealing.
If they really want to exceed my expectations, they would make a 4.2L direct injected turbo inline 6 cylinder similar in design to that 2.7 turbo 4 cylinder.
500HP!
I’d be more concerned with the 8speed especially after the last Gen issues, than I would turbo reliability.
The 8 speed on my HO sucks
It's a second gen that is supposed to address the major issues. Hopefully they were successful.
@@BowTied69 It’s GM….I’ll play the wait and see card.
@@hectortoledo5914 Ford's truck 10 speed is also miserable.
I had a 2019 ZR2 with the issue but they fixed it in one hour with a trans flush and newly engineered trans fluid. Drove it for another 20K after that and the problem was completely gone. Then I traded into a new 2022 ZR2 and the transmission was flawless from the start and still is perfect. I'll have my 2023 ZR2 in about 2 months and I'm not even slightly worried about the transmission as they've made it even better since then and all the review guys are saying it's beautifully paired with the 2.7.
Just my thoughts.
Also why did GM put cylinder deactivation in a 4 cylinder? Seems like added complexity with minimal benefit.
Did you watch?
Sure did, about 25 minutes of it. Then watched the last 5 and got my answer.
I'm glad tim asked because I posted question on his previous 2.7 turbo vid. This sounds like an interesting engine. Not sure i like cylinder deactivation on a 4 cylinder. I hope gm learned their lesson from the lifter problems related to cylinder deactivation they're having with the 6.2.
I don’t believe it’s the same thing as the v8’s regarding how they deactivate cylinders.
@@JJJ5.7no lifters
@PickupTruck Plus SUV Talk: Excellent interview, learned a lot. Things I would love to know… he stated the output approaches that of the big block 8.1 but he did not address the life expectancy of the 2.7 which is likely less than the 8.1 due to the pressure and compression. Also, what are the oil change intervals? You discussed the viscosity which is important but if owners go 10k between changes, I would have serious concern about engine life.
Life expectancy is an interesting question and every automaker hides behidn the "life of the engine" statement. Why? Liability. If he said 150,000 miles and 10 years, then you'd hold them accountable. If he said 300,000 miles and 20 years, then you'd have high expectations meaning if you had an issue early on, you'd be pissed.
There really is no way for them to answer that question.
As for the life expectancy vs the 8.1L, I'd actually go with the 2.7L laster longer. Why? New technology, new engineering and new ways to develop engines. The old way was build hundreds, tear them apart and try to figure out what failed. Now they can use new technology to cut out problems before they come up and they do a MUCH better job torture testing engines than they used to.
Oil change intervals are an interesting topic. It used to be 6 months or 3k miles and now it is 5 years going on 10 years. This is due to engine design and new oil viscosity.
Now, what about the Colorado? There is no real mileage interval on Chevy vehicles. Case in point, the Chevy Silverado I bought for a long-term review and the recent Trailblazer we bought for the family don't have an oil change interval. Instead, they have a oil life percentage gauge which takes into account driving habits. So, if you tow more, drive fast everywhere and really are aggressive with the truck, then you change your oil more often. If you don't do those things, you don't have to change your oil as often.
As the industry moves forward, I think we are going to start seeing more and more brands switch to oil life indicators rather than miles. It just makes more sense.
@@Pickuptrucktalk Oil change intervals are an interesting topic. It used to be 6 months or 3k miles and now it is "5 years going on 10 years". "5 years going on 10 years" oil change intervals maybe a little long.
@@Pickuptrucktalk it’s pretty hard to argue the durability of the old Chevy Big-Blocks. I always said what a Small-Block would do on the weekends, a Big-Block would do all-day, every day, for 200k miles.
Your guest even states that they knew the duty-cycle for this engine going in. Towing is one thing. Snowplows and dump bodies are another. Wonder if they’ve considered testing it in a “work truck”?
@@GoFastGator You can’t use a snowplow with a small displacement turbo engine. The plow blocks too much air coming into the engine. Those jobs of hauling or plowing snow are for HD trucks, not this one.
@@Pickuptrucktalk so while the 2.7 could be reasonably expected to last 200k miles in a truck used primarily as personal transportation, saying it’s as durable or more so than the 8.1, is more than a little optimistic given that the 8.1 (and the other big-blocks before it) has demonstrated similar lifespan in much, much tougher applications.
15:30 he said they added the ribs for the HO version, does that include the Plus model that can be tuned by the dealer to the HO torque levels?
My understanding is the Turbo Plus and Turbo HO are the same mechanically. So, yes. The WT/LT L2B is missing key hardware to tune it to HO levels.
@@Pickuptrucktalk gotcha thanks!
I had been staying away from gm trucks due to AFM/DFM issues. Hoping the 2.7 can rebuild their track record.
Ive got two 4 bangers.. 1, my kia rio.. and my GMC Sierra.. The GMC plants me in my seat almost instantly.. The rio, not even a comparison. Just like the rest of tech and engineering, everything gets smaller and more efficient as innovation progresses
Well thanks Tim for asking the question about the cylinder deactivation I understand it’s efficient but GM has difficulties in that area my 6.2liter and the lifters have been changed three times in less than 60,000 miles But I get it thanks for helpful insight
The 2.7 has 3 sets of cam lobes on each cam. The cylinder deactivation is achieved by sliding the cam back and forth.
@@Brutemandave would a afm disable device be recommended for the 2.7?
This isn't the traditional lifter style AFM you are thinking of. I would never disable the cams ability to move on a 2.7@@Day-dreamer488
People complaining about the AFM dont know anything about engines. The 2.7 is DOHC, meaning it doesnt have lifters, which was the problem with AFM in the V8s.
Great evaluation of the 2.7 turbo, might be interested
I don't think anyone doubts the power and efficiency of turbo 4s, it's just reliability that scares everyone. But I think the best reasoning I heard is from the GM haters, saying it couldn't be worse than the 8 speed transmissions, or 6L80e transmissions, or the lifters on the early cylinder shut off 5.3's.
Got a 2023 Chevy Colorado trail boss. Was great til 40k miles. Have had transmission issues since. Shifting rough. Misfiring off idle. Auto start stop coming out of it very rough.
GMC dealer said the wiring harness failed. Changed that. Fixed nothing. Still having issues
They can’t figure it out.
Truck runs fine outside of that. Very odd.
Curious about the gas. I’ve always used 91 premium in my trucks. They’ve always ran better. But maybe with this one as Kevin stated 87 is the way to go.
However I live in Utah and that’s not an option. We have 91/88/85 lol
Maybe 88
Think I’ll try that direction a few fill ups and see if it helps. Might be too little too late
One major point will be cost of ownership over the life of the engines between the V6 the 2.7T and the big block they were talking about. I plan on going all in on the 2023 Elevation AWD 0 other upgrades upgraded paint thats it and trading in a 2022 Buick envison St like 3,600 miles on it hopefully I don't get bent over lol.
So if I did put premium fuel in my Colorado Trail Boss WOULD it give anymore power? And will it hurt it since it was built for 87 octane ?
As he said, you are wasting your money with premium fuel.
My new work truck is a 2024 Colorado with the 2.7 Turbomax. It's a great ruck and engine combo with great power and torque at low RPM. Really fun to drive and looks solidly built.
....and yes the fuel question was finally answered!!! 87 octane
Dang that intercooler is pretty big. Love that it’s the same core as the half tons.
Curious about the longevity of the engine, also the lack of better mileage same as 5.3 ?
Longevity sucks I have 67k on my 2021 multiple trips to the dealership right now cylinder 3 is misfiring and getting all kinds of codes
I get 27 mpg out of my pentastar V^. How is that worse than the sub 20mpg that the 2.7 gets?
Kevin you are a gem and I hope this engine runs as long as it does strong..but if history and common sense serve, it won't! By the way, the Vega was the original application for the old iron head, aluminum block SOHC 2.3l disaster GM released back in 1971, not the Monza./ The Monza, unfortunately also sported this engine. Anyway, GM's 5.3l V8 with AFM has had lifter/cam issues as I'm sure you are aware. Class action suit is on going. Your turbo eco-tec engines are a mess. Then there's the "Hemi-tick" with Chysler/Stalantis. Ford's eco-boost has also been plagued with issues to numerous to mention. The new Toyota Tundra twin turbo V6 has waste gate issues! Everyone seems to have issues with phasers, phaser solenoids etc. having to do with VVT. By the way my 1984 Dodge 32:00 Daytona Turbo had a oil fed and liquid cooled turbo but the waste gate linkage failed at about 100k. Kevin don't be discouraged but I really wish you had taken the V6 and incorporated all the great ideas other than the turbo from this 2.7l 4 banger and optimized the engine as best you could for performance and the longest life possible. 4 cylinder engines even with balance shafts, vacuum motor mounts and every NVH feature you can throw at them still have the sound of a 4 banger..No getting around it. What percentage of your customers use their vehicles for rock climbing? Will the 2.7l turbo really deliver better mileage than an NA V6 if driven hard? Will it last longer? I doubt it. GM over the decades, has a bad habit of using it's customers for the final endurance test as do other makes but not to the same extent.
Thanks Tim. How long before we are using typewriter oil to run these engines?
I know it’s not as simple as oil weight/viscosity, but wow, they are asking a lot of a liquid. 🤔
I can't help but think that GM's investment in Saab over 25 years ago is paying dividends still. The B235R, developed in the late '90s, and fielded into the late 2000's, could produce 305 HP and 420Nm of torque from 2.3L of displacement from a "square" (90/90mm stroke/bore) design, port injection and a pretty simple turbo setup. Boost hits pretty low and torque holds out to extra-legal speeds in most situations and not in a tire-shredding way. It's a just a goodly shove down the road towards Officer Friendly's Performance Award Book, if you let things get blurry.
I just hope that all the tech keeps together. With the B235s you have ignition module issues (they died roasting on the top of the head) and spark plugs tended to wear out faster when you spent a lot of time in ~+1atm boost territory. I personally see similar maintenance issues with other +psi engines like VAG's 2.0T series. It's great technology but power density will test every single part over time. As long as the engineers can find the weaknesses as they continue to boost power density, we're all in for some good rides...
A lot better explanation than the dealer.
The tech is very impressive, but how about the most important feature, which is reliability?
Sure you can take a small displacement engine and pump it up with power.....but how long is it going to last?
I like the benefits of the turbos just a little hesitant on the durability and reliability. Seems like ford has largely worked out bugs in the 3.5. I'm seeing people with 200k miles on the 3.5. The gm 2.7 seems reliable. Curious about durability. How many miles to people have on these now.
Reliability sucks with the 2.7 I have put 67k on mine multiple trips to the service department now cylinder 3 is misfiring and trans issues stay far away from it!!!!!
GM needs to add two cylinders to this engine for a proper inline six for the full size trucks.
At the end of the day its forced induction and forced induction is known to
“Decrease” an engines lifespan. You can throw how many kilograms of extra aluminum to make the block stronger for the extra power/stress from a turbo but after its all said and done the internals will only last so long. Heat, more pressure and extra stress on the internals will succumb at the end. Another engine with gms failed AfM/DOD lifters. Since 2019 all the new stuff that has these the failure rate is higher.
Don’t semi truck engines go 500k miles before rebuilds? Seems like you were speaking generally hence my use of this comparison.
@@ALMX5DP Diesels for heavy duty applications have been turbocharged for decades. Gas not so much and that tells me all I need to know.
@@bobbbobb4663 so you don’t think knowledge transfers from one segment to another?
@@ALMX5DP No because it is easier to strengthen the internals of a Diesel engine to support a turbo versus a gas engine (among a list of other differences).
@@bobbbobb4663 what makes a diesel easier to strengthen? Diesels typically use cast iron blocks, but they also typically run higher boost pressures as well right?
This engine technology is great! Love this engine. I have the 3.5L Ecoboost and love it for towing and daily driving. It'd be great to see a deep dive on Ford's 2.7L and/or 3.5L Ecoboost engines. Thanks Tim!
Would compare maybe to fords 2.7 Ecoboost but that's a V6 & hence better
You didn’t actually watch the video did you?
I like a lot about this engine. The only thing that I don't like is lack if sealing surface between cylinders. This looks like a high stress area for head gaskets to blow out. I would like to hear what the engineer has to say about loading the head gasket compared to other engines.
On the TFL video he said they tested it running it wide open for weeks. Not sure, but I would think that would test the head gaskets to the max.
this really amuses me that both teams for the 3.0 LM2 and the 2.7 L3B where aimed in the same path of pushing the envelope but in very different manners!
i find most funny is that LM2 went mechanical water pump with the diverter valve and the L3B has the electric water pump instead, 2 sides to the same problem of temperature management answered differently to the same degree of success
Scroll to 24:28. Makes you wonder if I should change over to 5-30 on my Toyota tundra.
How is the engine noise inside the truck though? I want it quiet!
I almost bought a Silverado with this engine. The turbo having a dual flow path is a good thing to me. But a VGT feature for the engine breaking would be a plus for mountain driving and towing.
The lack of real 4wd was the deal breaker for me.
You can get the 2 speed transfer case on different trims.
@@Brutemandave Call me cheap. But I usually buy the more basic vehicles. Even though my credit score and income qualify me to buy any vehicle on the lot. I consider 4wd something a more basic item a vehicle should have available.
I don't need or want remote start, leather seats, or many other options. 4wd I only use once in a while, and maybe for only a few feet. But I need it when I need it. I will not pay $40k, $50k or $60k for a vehicle without it.
@@zxej6879 Trailboss comes with 2 speed transfer case which is available in both custom or LT trims
what do you mean "real" 4wd? i just bought one these is why with 4wd
@@Day-dreamer488 I think he means "real" as in terms of engaging the 4wd with manual levers instead of electric push buttons. Other than that the 4wd on my 2020 Silverado seems real to me. It hates turning into parking spots at low speeds if you don't give it enough throttle. You can feel the wheel chatter of the lockers being engaged. So I don't know how much more "real" you can get other than manual engagement for everything.
Are they gonna make a cold air intake for the turbo plus Colorado?
I'm sure someone is working on it.
I would think that the protection provided by the oil is more of a contributing factor in engine protection from wear rather than the parts themselves.
Two questions. Should I be running any fuel or oil additives from the start? And can we get that "Cadillac tune" for premium?
You can run additives from the start. GM doesn’t recommend them unless you are using poor diesel fuel. You can tune it, nothing from GM. Just have to find a tuner.
Great interview, but would like to have heard his take concerning carbon build up on these turbo engines.
Every brand has switched to higher pressure fuel injectors which is atomizing all the fuel in the combustion chamber making carbon build up a concern from the past.
Could be interesting to see if wet sleeve design could be integrated into this block
Does the turbocharger have a ball bearing center section?
I've driven this engine plenty of times. It does make good torque, but you definitely feel the higher RPM torque drop off. You really don't want to Rev this engine past 4500rpm.
It's damn near a diesel in power delivery.
How many of these types of videos do you have, where you interview engineers from companies?
Wondering if you have a playlist like this.
29 videos. Here you go: ruclips.net/p/PL8PJw4jHcHhcuG1ZPBGWH9FZL8AZhsUEF
@@Pickuptrucktalk This is gold, thank you so much for sharing it!
Silly to compare an 8100, to a 2.7, the 8100 was not available in any platform smaller than a 2500 HD, and the 2.7 isn't available in any 2500 HD or larger, because it isn't enough engine. Also, the 8100 can trace its roots all the way back to 1966.
I loved hearing this engineer talk about the 2.7L. The new Colorado/Canyon really seem to be my dream truck. The problem is there are so many issues with these new trucks. Roof dents with little pressure (can't go thru a car wash) Pieces are falling off. Electronic glitches. Emergency braking for no reason. Windshield not installed properly. List goes on. I'm pulling for GM and these trucks but not very encouraging overall so far...
Will the 2.7. Last 300,000 miles like the V-8. Asking for a friend
4 cylinder engine in a full-sized pickup truck that also deactivates 2 cylinders by design. Wonderful, a 1.35L twin moving a truck - what could possibly go wrong with that? Then to learn the fuel economy is no better than the 5.3L LS in my 2000 Sierra 1500 Z71! It passes emissions, that's about it...
Hi, i know my manual says 87 is minimal required, but should i run plus or 93 octane? I am planning to keep my 2023 2.7 1500 silverado for a long time???
87. The engineer said it.
Good timing! The silverado with the 2.7 how many horse does it have?
310 horsepower, 430 lb-ft torque
The 2.7 4cyl seems to be good. My concern is longevity.
So this torque chart suggest the 2.7 turbo is making just shy of 600 pounds of torque, the 2.8 durmax made 500 pounds and the 3.6 gas v6 made just shy of 400 pounds of torque. It appears something is wrong with the graph.
Newton meters, not lb-ft.
Ok Kevin sounds great! Let us know when the I-6 is out 😊
Hey - watched the entire video. AI says the 2.7 turbo on the Silverado requires 91 octane or better? I appreciate the video but what’s the deal?
AI is wrong.
Other mods for this engine.
Additional port fuel on top of DI, and Flex Fuel from the factory