Why does no one compare 2.7 vs 3.0...turbo motors?

4banger · July 1, 2022

Now that the 22 2.7L has 430 ft/lbs it should be compared across the board. Especially against the other boosted motor as they are essentially equals on power so now you can have gas or diesel option for those power levels.

One has more components(cylinders, turbos, emissions systems) than the other and is heavier, but returns 2 l/100km or 3.5 usmpg better average economy(fuelly.com). That’s 15% and guess what the difference in energy between diesel and gas is?...15% more energy in same volume of diesel.

One has 33 more hp and one has 30 ft/lbs more torque. A wash on power outputs.

As I’ve said before they if I was a luxury truck guy i’d be choked to not have access to the 2.7 (highest trim is LT). There are guys who can appreciate diesel power and efficiency but still never buy a diesel for various reasons so there’s an option in gas now that does essentially the identical job.

How long is it predicted before these comparisons are made between the two turbo motors? Or how long will the 2.7 be thought of as not enough?

Edited July 1, 2022 by 4banger

the wanderer · July 2, 2022

You can't just compare two peak hp/torque numbers and get a proper impression of how an engine feels. Power under the curve is more important than peak numbers even though we all like to fixate on just the peaks. The diesel feels stronger across the board, especially while towing.

I'm willing to bet that on the highway the MPG difference is 5+ mpg at least. Diesels want to run long distances, gassers are better in the city.

So there are definite differences between these two engines, I would not say the one can replace the other.

The real competition for the 2.7 is the 5.3, which IMHO is now completely irrelevant except for those who want that v8 sound. I would never purchase the 5.3, it would be 2.7 or the 6.2 when getting gas. That diesel is also attractive, but sadly they only put it in pricey trims with all kinds of stupid tech gizmos that I have no interest in using or fixing.

newdude · July 2, 2022

I see where you are trying to come from on this. The 2.7 (especially the HO) drives very diesel like. So could you compare the driving feel? I suppose so yes. The torque hits like a diesel all day long. Better driving experience than a 5.3 6 speed for sure, and 5.3 8 speed even.

The 2.7 is even built like its Duramax counterpart. Forged lower end, inline configuration, beefy main and rod bearings.

But that's kinda where it ends. The 3.0 will eat the 2.7 for fuel mileage all day long. Per tank averages with anything other than a lot of city driving, 24-28mpg per tank fill. Some guys in one of the Facebook groups have their Trip B running life of the vehicle efficiency and in 10-15K miles are pulling 26-28mpg over that entire driving distance.

For comparison, my 2.7 HO with 1900mi so far I'm a touch south of 20mpg for that total driving distance. Is it better than the 2 5.3's I've owned? Yep. Its still worse than my Colorado Duramax which when I traded that in with 33K on it got 25.5mpg average for that total driving distance.

Also. What I find kinda cool is the 2.7 has 3.63in bore and 4.02in stroke which makes for a pretty beefy 4 cylinder. The old Atlas I4 engine in the first gen Colorado/Canyon had the same exact stroke but both the 2.8 and 2.9 had ever so slightly larger bores (3.66in and 3.76in) but were NA, no turbo.

Edited July 2, 2022 by newdude

4banger · July 2, 2022

Great replies, agree in the diesel to gas differences, the 3.0 peak torque is 1500 rpm vs 3000 of the 2.7 so that’s going to be an even more relaxed drive experience and fuel economy wins won’t be disputed, it’s a given with the higher energy dense fuel and compression ratios keeping revs and power at such low rpm, but we know there’s all kinds of torque at 1500 rpm with the 2.7 also, boost benefits. The v8’s peak torque around 4100 rpm.

If I add the hp and torque of each together for a combined ‘work potential’ the 2.7 comes in at 740, the 5.3 at 738 and the 3.0 at 737. All three so similar in overall work potential but as soon as you leave sea level the 5.3 falls on its face while the boosted motors are unaffected by elevation change. The 6.2 adds up to 880 and at 5500’ elevation it’s equal output to the turbo motors so it holds advantage from sea level up to 5500’ from there upward the turbos take over.

So there’s really only two different power output levels offered in these GM half tons. 3 motors at one level and then the 6.2 at another level. They sure do cover a wide range of versatility and drive preferences though.

I tend to gravitate to simplest most versatile quality gear in life and ended up coming back to GM for the 2.7 h.o. Last one I had was 2013 and it was a 5.3. I’m at a couple thousand kms now and just towed about 3700 lbs across the Rockies into the northern tip of the Sonora for our summer vacation and it’s everything I’d hoped for and more. We had big league power, lost ground to no one, even did some passing but what a relaxed effortless journey. Got hand calculated 18.6 l/100km or 12.65 usmpg on the way here. Average cruise control setting was 110 kmh or 68.4 mph and tow haul mode engaged. The mountains and hills levelled out by the spin whistle. I towed same trailer back with 6.2 rental all this side of Rockies at same speeds and distance and got 20 l/100km (11.76 usmpg), so I can only anticipate that across the Rockies and the headwinds we faced for first 1/3rd of this trip the 6.2 would have a larger gap than that in fuel economy.

Glad this option available as I wouldn’t be back otherwise, won’t have diesel vehicle and the 6.2 too thirsty for a single vehicle do all daily.

It should see more comparison to the other options although it tends to be omitted from many comments still...like it’s chopped liver or something. Don’t dismiss the 2.7L! Its got the right formula.

Edited July 2, 2022 by 4banger

4banger · July 2, 2022

As for mpg differences I stated, I go to fuelly.com and compare the spectrum of years available with chosen motors to get the overall usages from many combined users. The 3.0 average is 15% better than the 2.7 and the 2.7 is 12.5% better than the 5.3.

Yes there are certain situations like hwy or light towing where the diesel will have a bigger gap but the overall averages are what they are and I feel a most realistic way to compare mileage due to the vast number of contributors.

Edited July 2, 2022 by 4banger

TNTSierra · July 2, 2022

It’s interesting you state that a 2.7L gets better fuel economy than a 5.3L. In theory it absolutely should but in many reviews I have read about it. The engine has all been great except for fuel economy. Here is just one article. It couldn’t even achieve 16!!

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25177218/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-four-cylinder-drive/

I’m up at our lake home this 4th and I have my 6.2L which is reading 19.6. And stepdads 5.3L with 10 speed read 22.8 mpgs. I still am so greatly impressed with how well this 5.3L/10 speed combo performs compared to my old two K2 5.3Ls.

4banger · July 3, 2022

1 hour ago, TNTSilverado said:

It’s interesting you state that a 2.7L gets better fuel economy than a 5.3L. In theory it absolutely should but in many reviews I have read about it. The engine has all been great except for fuel economy. Here is just one article. It couldn’t even achieve 16!!

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a25177218/2019-chevy-silverado-1500-four-cylinder-drive/

I’m up at our lake home this 4th and I have my 6.2L which is reading 19.6. And stepdads 5.3L with 10 speed read 22.8 mpgs. I still am so greatly impressed with how well this 5.3L/10 speed combo performs compared to my old two K2 5.3Ls.

Not me stating, just reposting fuelly.com averages. They let you pick year ranges of vehicles and filter the engines also, but not transmissions. I study these averages of most of the mid size and full size half ton trucks for quite awhile to understand the trends and the averages are typically what I’ve pulled down also, there are guys who drive a lot easier than I do but apparently there are guys who have a heavier foot than me too. Anyway it’s a great resource to do comparisons between trucks and even motors. I can see a 10 spd 5.3 with the a stuff doing equal at sea level up to maybe 1000’ elevation. After that it will wheeze to try and make the power the turbo can make. I’d rather take the collective info from fuelly than individual examples. Keeps us all honest in these discussions...not my buddies uncle who drives miss Daisy hyper mile etc.

the engine that has the versatility that can burn as little fuel as possible under light loads and idling yet ramp up output to work with the rest of the options, as well as make elevations disappear, will win the economy war, the turbos do this better than the v8’s

Diamond817 · July 3, 2022

Now, if GM would put the 10spd behind the 2.7 it would be better all around. I am interested in the 2.7, but I will not buy until they package it with the 10spd. I have the 8spd, been there done that and done.

TNTSierra · July 3, 2022

13 hours ago, 4banger said:

Not me stating, just reposting fuelly.com averages. They let you pick year ranges of vehicles and filter the engines also, but not transmissions. I study these averages of most of the mid size and full size half ton trucks for quite awhile to understand the trends and the averages are typically what I’ve pulled down also, there are guys who drive a lot easier than I do but apparently there are guys who have a heavier foot than me too. Anyway it’s a great resource to do comparisons between trucks and even motors. I can see a 10 spd 5.3 with the a stuff doing equal at sea level up to maybe 1000’ elevation. After that it will wheeze to try and make the power the turbo can make. I’d rather take the collective info from fuelly than individual examples. Keeps us all honest in these discussions...not my buddies uncle who drives miss Daisy hyper mile etc.

the engine that has the versatility that can burn as little fuel as possible under light loads and idling yet ramp up output to work with the rest of the options, as well as make elevations disappear, will win the economy war, the turbos do this better than the v8’s

I agree but also disagree because GMs small blocks have always performed as well or even better than boosted turbos. The minute I put something behind a turbo motor, they start to suck gas and work very hard.

Hell that article stated the 2.7L only achieved 16 mpgs. My 1997 5.0L C/K 1500 that we owned for 16 years lifetime average was 17 mpgs and with a damn ancient 4 speed tranny!! That right there says something about GMs small block heritage.

KARNUT · July 3, 2022

4 minutes ago, TNTSilverado said:

I agree but also disagree because GMs small blocks have always performed as well or even better than boosted turbos. The minute I put something behind a turbo motor, they start to suck gas and work very hard.

Hell that article stated the 2.7L only achieved 16 mpgs. My 1997 5.0L C/K 1500 that we owned for 16 years lifetime average was 17 mpgs and with a damn ancient 4 speed tranny!! That right there says something about GMs small block heritage.

Right after buying my tank Avalanche with the 373 rear end I took my brother in law to get his camper. At 72 MPH I got 17 mpg. Following him at 65 I got 19. At a major expense to the buyers going in and for repairs. The cylinder deactivation 8-10 speed transmission only helps GM. Ultimately does very little for the consumer.

4banger · July 3, 2022

4 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

I agree but also disagree because GMs small blocks have always performed as well or even better than boosted turbos. The minute I put something behind a turbo motor, they start to suck gas and work very hard.

Hell that article stated the 2.7L only achieved 16 mpgs. My 1997 5.0L C/K 1500 that we owned for 16 years lifetime average was 17 mpgs and with a damn ancient 4 speed tranny!! That right there says something about GMs small block heritage.

Well for similar output levels turbo vs naturally aspirated turbo is said to have ~13% better fuel economy. And just so happens the difference I noted between the 5.3 and 2.7 on fuelly was 12.5% so that passes sniff test, and these motors have essentially same power output levels(one had 45 more hp but 47 less ft/lbs torque). And I just spent a few weeks with a new 6.2 10 spd at 4000’ elevation where I live and it’s a pig, it’s ratings aren’t that far off the 5.3 so if you have some unique configuration, tires, elevation ans get great mpg from 5.3 then great but for the majority of users as noted by all metrics including the manufacture ratings etc. The overall averages the 2.7 beats the 5.3 on mileage and from 500’ elevation upward it has more power while doing it.

TNTSierra · July 4, 2022

7 hours ago, 4banger said:

Well for similar output levels turbo vs naturally aspirated turbo is said to have ~13% better fuel economy. And just so happens the difference I noted between the 5.3 and 2.7 on fuelly was 12.5% so that passes sniff test, and these motors have essentially same power output levels(one had 45 more hp but 47 less ft/lbs torque). And I just spent a few weeks with a new 6.2 10 spd at 4000’ elevation where I live and it’s a pig, it’s ratings aren’t that far off the 5.3 so if you have some unique configuration, tires, elevation ans get great mpg from 5.3 then great but for the majority of users as noted by all metrics including the manufacture ratings etc. The overall averages the 2.7 beats the 5.3 on mileage and from 500’ elevation upward it has more power while doing it.

Yet car magazine reviewers all state it doesn’t achieve its so called MPGs. I don’t live in your elevation and a majority of others don’t either. Bring that 2.7L down here and the 5.3L and 6.2L will embarrass it!

Even in your elevation. The 5.3L is still right there on par and won’t be working as hard and the 6.2L is in a whole other league

car and driver. 0-60 times

2.7L…..7.0 secs.

5.3L…..6.1 secs.

6.2L……….5.3 secs. That’s almost 2 full seconds. Not even close when elevation isn’t a factor which for me and many others it’s not. For you I can definitely see it. Until they can make that 4 cylinder achieve 28-30 mpgs consistently…I’ll stick with a V8 that can achieve mid 20s.

The 6.2L you also had was on a lifted truck. Of course it’s gonna affect the MPGs and performance! Go put a lift and larger tires on your 2.7L and watch the MPGs and performance drop dramatically.

That’s why GM should offer a sport truck and offer the 2.7L in a single cab. A 5.3L in ext cab and a 6.2L in crew cab with an option to add supercharger to the 2 V8s. They had one at the SEMA show back in 2018. If GM would put a blower on either V8….you can take elevation out entirely!

I have seen first hand from stepdad, brother in law, and father law all having ecoboost V6s that they underperform tremendously compared to GMs V8s. All my 5.3L and 6.2L achieved better mpgs. Hell my old school 5.0L achieved better than my stepdads 2011 ecoboost.

We could go on and on. I’m glad you like your “4 cylinder”. It seems to be a nice little engine. But to put it into a conversation with two of GMs V8s is amusing. It has a long way to go to achieve the reputation of GMs small blocks!

Edited July 4, 2022 by TNTSilverado

mjonesjr84 · July 4, 2022

On 7/1/2022 at 1:11 PM, 4banger said:

One has 33 more hp and one has 30 ft/lbs more torque. A wash on power outputs.

You can't say power is a wash comparing HP and TQ numbers. Those are 2 completely different numbers with one only being calculated and not actually measured.

Comparing a gas to a diesel engine always blows my mind. There are too many differences to compare them.

Silverado4x4 · July 4, 2022

13 hours ago, TNTSilverado said:

Yet car magazine reviewers all state it doesn’t achieve its so called MPGs. I don’t live in your elevation and a majority of others don’t either. Bring that 2.7L down here and the 5.3L and 6.2L will embarrass it!

Even in your elevation. The 5.3L is still right there on par and won’t be working as hard and the 6.2L is in a whole other league

car and driver. 0-60 times

2.7L…..7.0 secs.

5.3L…..6.1 secs.

6.2L……….5.3 secs. That’s almost 2 full seconds. Not even close when elevation isn’t a factor which for me and many others it’s not. For you I can definitely see it. Until they can make that 4 cylinder achieve 28-30 mpgs consistently…I’ll stick with a V8 that can achieve mid 20s.

The 6.2L you also had was on a lifted truck. Of course it’s gonna affect the MPGs and performance! Go put a lift and larger tires on your 2.7L and watch the MPGs and performance drop dramatically.

That’s why GM should offer a sport truck and offer the 2.7L in a single cab. A 5.3L in ext cab and a 6.2L in crew cab with an option to add supercharger to the 2 V8s. They had one at the SEMA show back in 2018. If GM would put a blower on either V8….you can take elevation out entirely!

I have seen first hand from stepdad, brother in law, and father law all having ecoboost V6s that they underperform tremendously compared to GMs V8s. All my 5.3L and 6.2L achieved better mpgs. Hell my old school 5.0L achieved better than my stepdads 2011 ecoboost.

We could go on and on. I’m glad you like your “4 cylinder”. It seems to be a nice little engine. But to put it into a conversation with two of GMs V8s is amusing. It has a long way to go to achieve the reputation of GMs small blocks!

Just to add that 2.7 motor is always working hard to get the job done where the 5.3 and 6.2 motor is just sitting back in the EZ chair working.

Grumpy Bear · July 4, 2022

On 7/1/2022 at 12:11 PM, 4banger said:

Or how long will the 2.7 be thought of as not enough?

As long as there is something more.

How sad is that?

Scan Gauge II that I run tells me across all motors in my fleet that rarely is the motor asked to put up more than 100 horsepower and rarely turns over 3,000 rpm. 310hp and 430 lbs/ft torque? This 2.7 Turbo motor is loafing most of the time.

Seriously? 383 lbs/ft for the 5.3 and the 2.7 is only 30 lbs/ft short of the 6.2. Yea, 93.5% of the torque of the 6.2. It's built for it. Doesn't hurt it a bit.