2.7 Turbo 4 Fan Club

4banger · August 2, 2022

2 hours ago, the wanderer said:

We already know what a N/A 4 banger in a colorado style truck gets for MPG as that's been an option in the current gen for years, you can check fuelly but it's nothing special at all and its far far less than the 3.0 diesel. Now making the 4 banger turbo charged will only give you worse MPG. You can't force more air through a bigger engine without also increasing fuel consumption, the old n/a 4 cylinder was even smaller in terms of displacement than the new 2.7 is.

I highly suspect the opposite: like we see in the silverado, the diesel options are still king for MPG by a huge margin (at least 5 mpg).

Dropping the 2.8 diesel from the colorado is a big mistake. GM should have further developed the diesel. And the 4 banger turbo as impressive for power as it is from only 4 cylinders, will still get stomped by the v6 turbo in the ranger.

So the new colorado neither wins any awards for fuel savings, nor for best performance. I smell a dud.

GM tries to spin bad decisions into good outcomes but it's all BS. The 8 speed is not good enough when the ranger has 10 gears and even more power. Dropping the diesel option is about cost cutting, not because the new turbo is able to compete with it in MPG and towing at the same time.

I'm not impressed in the slightest. Guess I'll have to keep looking for my next truck, hopefully I get a few years yet out of my current one.

so the 2.7t built as a long stroke with a diesel bottom end and can handle cylinder pressures of 22 psi boost on gasoline passing the same durability testing as the v8's and can run on 2 cylinders with gobs of torque at 1500 rpm to sip fuel but ramp up to big league N/A v8 power when asked....detuned and boost lowered for economy doesn't scream longevity master and low total cost of ownership to you then? not sure what you're looking for but between the Colorado and Silverado options if it's not there then you're simply not going to be happy at all, with anything in life I suspect, don't like the choice in Colorado? get the Silverado, base engine now is 430 ft/lbs

and sorry on the 2.8 diesel, dropping is was brilliant move, the only way to do them properly is full delete and tow tune, but good luck with all the hassles and legality issues, sadly they've made diesels very unappealing to a great many gear heads due to the emissions crap, the gm 2.7t is essentially the closest thing you'll ever see to a modern 4bt cummins powered by gas, regardless of tune...the gm 2.7t is a real truck guys wet dream when you remove all the subjective nonsense

interesting comment about turbo v6 ranger 'blowing the doors' off...who buys mid size trucks for drag racing again? I dunno about you but I see a ton of old guys running around in old ford rangers, old Toyota 2wd's, and also auto parts trucks etc. and if I were a fleet buyer in need of mid size trucks the low tune would be first pick, thing should be in a different league of durability and economy for gas and as stated, 259 ft/lbs of torque at low rpm will motivate the truck just fine, retired guys all about the lowest total cost of ownership...so nice to see an option that makes perfect sense for that

and ya I disagree that the low tune 2.7t won't be a stud on fuel economy and it will absolutely blow the doors off the N/A 2.5 in ability to work as well, they won't even be in the same league, throw some elevation at it and the gaps would just grow and grow, the low tune would pull my 3000 lb trailer just fine, the h.o. I now own pulls it like a sports truck, overkill for my trailering needs really, I was pulling it with a pentastar ram and then pentastar gladiator and the low tune turbo at my elevation would have 20 ft/lbs more torque and it would have it much lower rpm, it would be preferred to the pentastar v6 where I live, will not go back to N/A engines knowing what I know now

lastly what is your ask of a truck? if it's not a full-size 2019+ new gm why did you come to this forum and thread to vent? good luck finding your base mid-size with the baddest motor lol, you don't appear to live in the real world, you can get it in the 1500 gm's though and you can get in in a reg cab shorty to boot, good luck finding that in the mid size segment

the wanderer · August 2, 2022

27 minutes ago, 4banger said:

so the 2.7t built as a long stroke with a diesel bottom end and can handle cylinder pressures of 22 psi boost on gasoline passing the same durability testing as the v8's and can run on 2 cylinders with gobs of torque at 1500 rpm to sip fuel but ramp up to big league N/A v8 power when asked....detuned and boost lowered for economy doesn't scream longevity master and low total cost of ownership to you then? not sure what you're looking for but between the Colorado and Silverado options if it's not there then you're simply not going to be happy at all, with anything in life I suspect, don't like the choice in Colorado? get the Silverado, base engine now is 430 ft/lbs

and sorry on the 2.8 diesel, dropping is was brilliant move, the only way to do them properly is full delete and tow tune, but good luck with all the hassles and legality issues, sadly they've made diesels very unappealing to a great many gear heads due to the emissions crap, the gm 2.7t is essentially the closest thing you'll ever see to a modern 4bt cummins powered by gas, regardless of tune...the gm 2.7t is a real truck guys wet dream when you remove all the subjective nonsense

interesting comment about turbo v6 ranger 'blowing the doors' off...who buys mid size trucks for drag racing again? I dunno about you but I see a ton of old guys running around in old ford rangers, old Toyota 2wd's, and also auto parts trucks etc. and if I were a fleet buyer in need of mid size trucks the low tune would be first pick, thing should be in a different league of durability and economy for gas and as stated, 259 ft/lbs of torque at low rpm will motivate the truck just fine, retired guys all about the lowest total cost of ownership...so nice to see an option that makes perfect sense for that

and ya I disagree that the low tune 2.7t won't be a stud on fuel economy and it will absolutely blow the doors off the N/A 2.5 in ability to work as well, they won't even be in the same league, throw some elevation at it and the gaps would just grow and grow, the low tune would pull my 3000 lb trailer just fine, the h.o. I now own pulls it like a sports truck, overkill for my trailering needs really, I was pulling it with a pentastar ram and then pentastar gladiator and the low tune turbo at my elevation would have 20 ft/lbs more torque and it would have it much lower rpm, it would be preferred to the pentastar v6 where I live, will not go back to N/A engines knowing what I know now

lastly what is your ask of a truck? if it's not a full-size 2019+ new gm why did you come to this forum and thread to vent? good luck finding your base mid-size with the baddest motor lol, you don't appear to live in the real world, you can get it in the 1500 gm's though and you can get in in a reg cab shorty to boot, good luck finding that in the mid size segment

The 2.8 diesel isn't for everyone but if they put some effort into it (like they did the 2.7 gas) they could have advanced it further it would be a great towing truck for smaller trailers like mine. I browse a bunch of different truck forums as I'm not a brand zealot and will buy the best truck for my needs. The 2.7 turbo is currently the best base engine in a full size, I almost bought one; but they missed the boat when it came to the colorado in my opinion. It doesn't do anything particularly well compared to competitors; if you want MPG it sucks compared to diesel, if you want performance it sucks compared to ranger etc etc, and I'm not going to pay for a software upgrade either. All my 2 cents, no need for some of you fine gents to get that offended over it.

4banger · August 2, 2022

3 hours ago, the wanderer said:

We already know what a N/A 4 banger in a colorado style truck gets for MPG as that's been an option in the current gen for years, you can check fuelly but it's nothing special at all and its far far less than the 3.0 diesel. Now making the 4 banger turbo charged will only give you worse MPG. You can't force more air through a bigger engine without also increasing fuel consumption, the old n/a 4 cylinder was even smaller in terms of displacement than the new 2.7 is.

found it stunning you'd think a N/A 2.5 would even remotely compare to the boosted 2.7 at any level, rule of thumb is when you boost you need half the displacement for similar power level of N/A...so there's that, and oddly here you are mad that you can't get higher power in the lower trim level mid size truck tells me you wouldn't consider the 2.5 wheezer anyway...did you start into the cocktails a little early today?

anyway, 2.5 rated at sea level at 200 hp at 6300 rpm and 191 ft/lbs at 4400 rpm, the low tune 2.7t at 237 hp and 259 ft/lbs...if like the other tunes will be mid 5000's rpm peak hp and 3000 rpm peak torque with gobs of it from 1500-4000, so at sea level alone there's 46 more hp and 68 ft/lbs more torque and at much lower rpms (36% more torque is a different level)...where I live at 4000' that 2.5 reduces down to 177 hp and 169 ft/lbs...for a gap of 60 hp and 82 ft/lbs(43% diff.)...again...at much lower rpm

turbos completely unaffected by elevation, turbo power delivery down low effortless grunt vs car like high rpm delivery, the 2.7t low tune will have the flexibility to beat the 2.5 on light load economy(2 cylinder mode, low boost pressure) and the ability to work every bit as well as any modern n/a 3.5 v6...something the 2.5 could never do so it lacks versatility only boosted motors can bring to the plate, and knowing that low tune and everything attached to it can handle significantly more loads...will last a long time and have very little for problems, something most guys looking for basic strip down trucks and low total cost of ownership would be ecstatic about

so what is your perfect truck then? you're saying it doesn't exist? cab and drive config, power and economy expectations, other 'truck' features that you require?

Edited August 2, 2022 by 4banger

the wanderer · August 2, 2022

1 minute ago, 4banger said:

found it stunning you'd think a N/A 2.5 would even remotely compare to the boosted 2.7 at any level, rule of thumb is when you boost you need half the displacement for similar power level of N/A...so there's that, and oddly here you are mad that you can't get higher power in the lower trim level mid size truck tells me you wouldn't consider the 2.5 wheezer anyway...did you start into the cocktails a little early today?

anyway, 2.5 rated at sea level at 200 hp at 6300 rpm and 191 ft/lbs at 4400 rpm, the 2.7t at 237 hp and 259 ft/lbs...if like the other tunes will be mid 5000's rpm peak hp and 3000 rpm peak torque with gobs of it from 1500-4000, so at sea level alone there's 46 more hp and 68 ft/lbs more torque and at much lower rpms (36% more torque is a different level)...where I live at 4000' that 2.5 reduces down to 177 hp and 169 ft/lbs...for a gap of 60 hp and 82 ft/lbs(43% diff.)...again...at much lower rpm, they won't even be remotely comparable engines, turbos completely unaffected by elevation, turbo power delivery down low effortless grunt vs car like high rpm delivery, it would be an absolute joke to compare these two motors, the low tune 2.7t is in a completely different league than the n/a 2.5, the 2.7t low tune will have the flexibility to beat the 2.5 on light load economy(2 cylinder mode, low boost pressure) and the ability to work every bit as well as any modern n/a 3.5 v6...something the 2.5 could never do so it lacks versatility only boosted motors can bring to the plate, and knowing that low tune and everything attached to it can handle significantly more loads...will last a long time and have very little for problems, something most guys looking for basic strip down trucks and low total cost of ownership would be ecstatic about

so what is your perfect truck then? you're saying it doesn't exist?

Read my post again, it was an MPG comparison only; in other words, the current 4 banger gets poor fuel economy compared to the 2.8 diesel, not a chance that adding a turbo and increasing the displacement is going to get you any better fuel economy.

Perfect doesn't exist, only compromises. You pick the truck that works best for you, but nothing is perfect not even my current truck.

Mike Borowski · August 2, 2022

10 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Read my post again, it was an MPG comparison only; in other words, the current 4 banger gets poor fuel economy compared to the 2.8 diesel, not a chance that adding a turbo and increasing the displacement is going to get you any better fuel economy.

Perfect doesn't exist, only compromises. You pick the truck that works best for you, but nothing is perfect not even my current truck.

Do you understand the concept of more power using less gas than lower power using more gas to move weight?

4banger · August 2, 2022

8 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Read my post again, it was an MPG comparison only; in other words, the current 4 banger gets poor fuel economy compared to the 2.8 diesel, not a chance that adding a turbo and increasing the displacement is going to get you any better fuel economy.

Perfect doesn't exist, only compromises. You pick the truck that works best for you, but nothing is perfect not even my current truck.

well comparing the n/a 2.5 to the 2.7t was like comparing a Honda Civic to an Acura TL, should at least compare things in the same league, even though you're making 36%+ more power potential with the low tune 2.7t putting it in a totally different league than the 2.5...being able to run on 2 cylinders with variable boost flexibility makes the 2.7t a 1.35 liter engine at times of low power needs with lots of torque down low allowing 2 cylinders to work more than one would think, so I will disagree that the low tune 2.7t can't beat the n/a 2.5 on economy while being in a completely different league for work potential, it is more dynamic, more flexible, 1.35 liter on lower boost to essentially n/a 3.5 v6 power output levels, I'm sure what I just said will bear true once the low tune 2.7t hits the market and we see some economy reports on these running empty

I haven't seen what you tow, what do you tow? I know my 3000 lb home built cargo conversion adventure pod would easily be pulled by the low tune 2.7t. It's got 20 ft/lbs more torque than my gladiator pentastar at my elevation which gets it around just fine and it would have that at lower rpm to boot, the pentastar likes its revs, I would take the low tune 2.7t over a n/a v6 everyday of the week and twice on sundays

totally agree the perfect truck doesn't exist, I got pretty close with mine but perfect would be a 6 speed manual transmission, fairly heavy flywheel, a reasonably stout non-hydraulic clutch, and NO freaking rev hang, otherwise they nailed it lol, so I live with a damn slush box again...the motor though = half ton perfection, and in 390 ft/lb trim in a Colorado z71 would do everything equally in the smaller package as well, enjoying the space/comfort of the 6 seater full size though, so can't say I'd even consider the Colorado with the Silverado options and h.o. turbo's in basic trims, if I go back to mid size it would be to the gm 2.7t, the ford 2.3 single turbo inline 4 would be a fine choice but you can scratch any v6 twin turbo off my lists when inline single turbos are available, I'm after truck engines not car engines

also, I almost went the zr2 2.8 diesel route when I got my 2020 gladiator, the manual transmission got that sale for fca, plus I'd have been off warranty immediately with the diesel, I would have had to go full delete, tow tune, aux. fuel tank and then live with the headaches I get from diesel exhaust fumes, it's all working out, the gm 2.7t is a far better choice than any diesel for anything I do as an outdoorsy dad with a single vehicle do all versatility approach, anyone looking for a solid gladiator manual on 37's with 4.88 axles? will be for sale soon, just gotta clean it up, the 2.7t stays

Mike Borowski · August 2, 2022

11 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Read my post again, it was an MPG comparison only; in other words, the current 4 banger gets poor fuel economy compared to the 2.8 diesel, not a chance that adding a turbo and increasing the displacement is going to get you any better fuel economy.

Perfect doesn't exist, only compromises. You pick the truck that works best for you, but nothing is perfect not even my current truck.

Do you understand the concept of more power using less gas than lower power using more gas to move weight?

the wanderer · August 3, 2022

28 minutes ago, 4banger said:

well comparing the n/a 2.5 to the 2.7t was like comparing a Honda Civic to an Acura TL, should at least compare things in the same league, even though you're making 36%+ more power potential with the low tune 2.7t putting it in a totally different league than the 2.5...being able to run on 2 cylinders with variable boost flexibility makes the 2.7t a 1.35 liter engine at times of low power needs with lots of torque down low allowing 2 cylinders to work more than one would think, so I will disagree that the low tune 2.7t can't beat the n/a 2.5 on economy while being in a completely different league for work potential, it is more dynamic, more flexible, 1.35 liter on lower boost to essentially n/a 3.5 v6 power output levels, I'm sure what I just said will bear true once the low tune 2.7t hits the market and we see some economy reports on these running empty

I haven't seen what you tow, what do you tow? I know my 3000 lb home built cargo conversion adventure pod would easily be pulled by the low tune 2.7t. It's got 20 ft/lbs more torque than my gladiator pentastar at my elevation which gets it around just fine and it would have that at lower rpm to boot, the pentastar likes its revs, I would take the low tune 2.7t over a n/a v6 everyday of the week and twice on sundays

totally agree the perfect truck doesn't exist, I got pretty close with mine but perfect would be a 6 speed manual transmission, fairly heavy flywheel, a reasonably stout non-hydraulic clutch, and NO freaking rev hang, otherwise they nailed it lol, so I live with a damn slush box again...the motor though = half ton perfection, and in 390 ft/lb trim in a Colorado z71 would do everything equally in the smaller package as well, enjoying the space/comfort of the 6 seater full size though, so can't say I'd even consider the Colorado with the Silverado options and h.o. turbo's in basic trims, if I go back to mid size it would be to the gm 2.7t, the ford 2.3 single turbo inline 4 would be a fine choice but you can scratch any v6 twin turbo off my lists when inline single turbos are available, I'm after truck engines not car engines

also, I almost went the zr2 2.8 diesel route when I got my 2020 gladiator, the manual transmission got that sale for fca, plus I'd have been off warranty immediately with the diesel, I would have had to go full delete, tow tune, aux. fuel tank and then live with the headaches I get from diesel exhaust fumes, it's all working out, the gm 2.7t is a far better choice than any diesel for anything I do as an outdoorsy dad with a single vehicle do all versatility approach, anyone looking for a solid gladiator manual on 37's with 4.88 axles? will be for sale soon, just gotta clean it up, the 2.7t stays

I'm not comparing the engines per se, I'm looking at the total package; what do I get, what I pay, and what do I compromise. My issue is not that the 2.7 is a poor engine, it's a great engine in the right package (like a base half ton) but the new colorado doesn't have that package that interests me. As I said, the new colorado doesn't have an engine choice that gives you best in class performance, or if you want best in class MPG, or if you want best in class reliability etc etc).

Based on my priorities, if I wanted a quarter ton I'd have to get the current canyon with the 2.8 diesel. If I had to replace my truck with another half ton, I'd get another ram (although the 3.0 diesel with the 10 speed is the better drivetrain, I'm not paying 15 to 20K more for a bunch of other stuff included in the package that doesn't interest me). If I needed a heavy duty it would be the ford with the 7.3/10 speed. These 3 picks of mine are still compromises, there are many things I like about other trucks, but I can only pick one.

I think the new canyon will not get that good mpg. If it turns out I'm wrong, perfect I may reconsider, but I've given actual fuelly reports to explain my opinion and suspicions.

the wanderer · August 3, 2022

32 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

Do you understand the concept of more power using less gas than lower power using more gas to move weight?

Look up stoichiometric mixture. You cannot possibly increase the displacement of an engine without also burning more fuel. And when you throw turbos on a smaller engine, that's equivalent (in terms of fuel/air ratio) to running a bigger engine without turbos.

There is no free lunch. The second those turbos are doing their thing, you may as well be driving a v8. If you watched a Ford turbo towing review you'd know this.

Mike Borowski · August 3, 2022

4 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Look up stoichiometric mixture. You cannot possibly increase the displacement of an engine without also burning more fuel. And when you throw turbos on a smaller engine, that's equivalent (in terms of fuel/air ratio) to running a bigger engine without turbos.

There is no free lunch. The second those turbos are doing their thing, you may as well be driving a v8. If you watched a Ford turbo towing review you'd know this.

GEARS AND GEARINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Mike Borowski · August 3, 2022

4 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Look up stoichiometric mixture. You cannot possibly increase the displacement of an engine without also burning more fuel. And when you throw turbos on a smaller engine, that's equivalent (in terms of fuel/air ratio) to running a bigger engine without turbos.

There is no free lunch. The second those turbos are doing their thing, you may as well be driving a v8. If you watched a Ford turbo towing review you'd know this.

GEARS AND GEARINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Mike Borowski · August 3, 2022

3 minutes ago, Mike Borowski said:

GEARS AND GEARINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

8 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Look up stoichiometric mixture. You cannot possibly increase the displacement of an engine without also burning more fuel. And when you throw turbos on a smaller engine, that's equivalent (in terms of fuel/air ratio) to running a bigger engine without turbos.

There is no free lunch. The second those turbos are doing their thing, you may as well be driving a v8. If you watched a Ford turbo towing review you'd know this.

How do you explain the GM 6.1 getting better fuel economy than a 5.7 Hemi genius?

the wanderer · August 3, 2022

1 minute ago, Mike Borowski said:

How do you explain the GM 6.1 getting better fuel economy than a 5.7 Hemi genius?

There is no GM 6.1. Assuming you meant 6.2, you're not comparing engine vs engine you're comparing an engine in one truck to a different engine in a different truck. There is more going on at play, such as GM's use of 10 speeds vs the 8 in the Ram, different body style/aero, the GM's on average are several hundred pounds lighter due to their strategy of mixed materials, Ram's are quite often running a higher gear ratio (3.92 is extremely common, GM uses mostly 3.23 IIRC). The hemi also has an older MDS system (equivalent to AFM) vs GM's newer DFM. Etc etc.

As I said in a previous post I recently got 27 mpg, and have no problems whatsoever getting 23+ on a very regular basis. But the hemi was originally designed in early 2000's, it's had a refresh in 2009 adding VVT and MDS but it's not a modern engine by any means and has definitely reached end of life.

The new inline 3.0L hurricane coming in the next Ram refresh will produce more power (510 hp) than the GM 6.2, but I sincerely doubt there will be much difference in terms of MPG for the same reasons I've already mentioned. Modern engine designs can do a bit (so going from a 20 year old design to a new design you can eke out some tiny gains somewhere), but as a general rule you simply cannot make more power without increasing fuel.

But if you're going call names and respond like a child I have better ways to spend my time. So this is my last response to you. Enjoy your evening.

shakenfake · August 3, 2022

38 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

Look up stoichiometric mixture. You cannot possibly increase the displacement of an engine without also burning more fuel. And when you throw turbos on a smaller engine, that's equivalent (in terms of fuel/air ratio) to running a bigger engine without turbos.

There is no free lunch. The second those turbos are doing their thing, you may as well be driving a v8. If you watched a Ford turbo towing review you'd know this.

False, power to weight ratio is important in these scenarios. I went from a 5.3L to a 6.0L with cam and heads and gained 2mpg in the same truck. This is because it takes less power to get my truck moving therefore less gas used.

Although yes 99% of the time you are correct it is important to remember power to weight ratios.

Mike Borowski · August 3, 2022

11 minutes ago, the wanderer said:

There is no GM 6.1. Assuming you meant 6.2, you're not comparing engine vs engine you're comparing an engine in one truck to a different engine in a different truck. There is more going on at play, such as GM's use of 10 speeds vs the 8 in the Ram, different body style/aero, the GM's on average are several hundred pounds lighter due to their strategy of mixed materials, Ram's are quite often running a higher gear ratio (3.92 is extremely common, GM uses mostly 3.23 IIRC). The hemi also has an older MDS system (equivalent to AFM) vs GM's newer DFM. Etc etc.

As I said in a previous post I recently got 27 mpg, and have no problems whatsoever getting 23+ on a very regular basis. But the hemi was originally designed in early 2000's, it's had a refresh in 2009 adding VVT and MDS but it's not a modern engine by any means and has definitely reached end of life.

The new inline 3.0L hurricane coming in the next Ram refresh will produce more power (510 hp) than the GM 6.2, but I sincerely doubt there will be much difference in terms of MPG for the same reasons I've already mentioned. Modern engine designs can do a bit (so going from a 20 year old design to a new design you can eke out some tiny gains somewhere), but as a general rule you simply cannot make more power without increasing fuel.

But if you're going call names and respond like a child I have better ways to spend my time. So this is my last response to you. Enjoy your evening.

Yes typo. 6.2. You are comparing engines in truck to truck to!!!! You haven’t even driven a Colorado with a 2.7. You have no idea what you’re talking about.