2019 Chevy Silverado 2.7-liter, 4-cylinder hits 23 mpg

[ccap41]

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2019-chevy-silverado-2-7-four-cylinder-23-mpg-fuel-economy/

"The 2019 Chevrolet Silverado is the first modern full-size pickup to get a four-cylinder engine option, and now we know how efficient the new mill will be. The all-new 2.7-liter, turbocharged power plant will yield an estimated 20 miles per gallon city, 23 mpg highway, and 20 mpg combined in rear-wheel-drive configuration, as paired to a standard eight-speed automatic transmission.

Despite its healthy 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque, those fuel-efficiency figures may come across as slightly disappointing to some truck shoppers, as they aren't class-leading numbers compared to small-engine offerings from its main rivals, the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500.

According to the data on FuelEconomy.gov, Ford's 2018 F-Series truck offers up to 20 mpg city, 26 highway and 22 mpg combined with its turbocharged 2.7-liter V6. The Blue Oval engine actually offers more horsepower (325) and more torque, some 400 pound-feet. The F-150's larger, naturally aspirated 3.3-liter V6, which Chevy says is a better comparison, still offers 19 city, 25 highway, 22 combined, but it's less powerful at 290 hp and 265 pound-feet.

For its part, the new 2019 Ram 1500 offers a 3.6-liter V6 powertrain that generates 305 hp and 269 pound-feet. It also delivers EPA estimates of 20 mpg city, 25 hwy and 22 combined. The Ram truck stacks the efficiency deck somewhat, however, as it features Fiat Chrysler Automobiles' eTorque mild-hybrid assist, which also means the powertrain can deliver up to 359 pound-feet of torque in bursts.

The Chevy Silverado 1500's new 2.7-liter turbo engine replaces General Motors' naturally aspirated 4.3-liter V6 in a high-volume Silverado LT and a new RST sport-truck variant. The long-serving six-cylinder remains available as a base engine elsewhere in the Silverado lineup.

Despite the somewhat disappointing fuel mileage figures for Chevy's new four-cylinder, buyers should be happy with the powertrain's 2,280-pound payload rating, which is up to 600 pounds more than similarly equipped trucks from its cross-town rivals. However, the 2.7-liter's max tow rating of 7,200 pounds is slightly worse. ..."

[G. David Felt]

Always gonna be a mixed bag when you go turbo 4 banging in a full size truck. Over all not bad though.

Imagine if this was an EV with generator 2wd pickup, it would really roast the cross town rivals.

As I posted in the update for this company, you could have blistering torque and power if you only went with 2 in-wheel hub motors.

 

[ccap41]

It's not a bad option but I don't know why one would choose this over the 5.3 or Ford's 2.7. 

[G. David Felt]

Just now, ccap41 said:

It's not a bad option but I don't know why one would choose this over the 5.3 or Ford's 2.7. 

Agree, I think it will come down for some to cost. The story does not cover this at all and I have yet to see what the cost of the Turbo 4 banger is compared to the V8 options.  Then a Turbo versus an NA V6 and one with electric assist, should be interesting to see how it falls out.

I honestly would take a GM full size pickup with a Hybrid powertrain if it was using their strong NA V6 motor. I honestly do not see why GM is not building a toughened version of the VOLT power train and putting it in the full size truck. It would be class leading and kill the competition.

[Drew Dowdell]

I think GM is just trying to prove that a 4-cylinder pickup could sell.  Still, I'd rather have a 6 even if it is a smaller turbo one like the Ford 2.7T. 

[smk4565]

20 mpg city sounds decent, but 23 mpg highway rounds rather weak.  You'd think a 4-cylinder engine would post better numbers.

I also don't know why Toyota hasn't done a Tundra Hybrid with the Lexus LC500h powertrain, that is good for 26/35 mpg in a 4500 lb car, I imagine in a truck it would still be good for over 25 mpg.

[balthazar]

The all-new 2.7-liter, turbocharged power plant will yield an estimated 20 miles per gallon city, 23 mpg highway, and 20 mpg combined

Typo? Combined is identical to city.

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, balthazar said:

 

 

Typo? Combined is identical to city.

https://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2018/oct/1010-silverado.html

According to the press release today, they only call out city and highway and DO NOT mention combined. I found on numerous sites that they either went with 20 combined or 21 combined. But GM has not confirmed what the Combined is.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20181010/OEM04/181019884/2019-chevy-silverado-21-mpg

Automotive News has combined 21.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2018/10/10/2019-chevy-silverados-fuel-economy-new-turbo-engine/1585724002/

Detroit press states only what GM released.

CNET seems to have some really weird confused info when you compare their story to the GM press release. It is as if they want to present GM in a bad light.

@Drew Dowdell @William Maley

Guys, do you have anymore info from GM based on your own contacts about this MPG thing for the 2019?

[G. David Felt]

I will say that this is the best look I have seen on this new Chevy Mug.

Gotta love these quotes from the press release that seem to not totally jive with what others have stated about Ford and Ram.

 The base curb weight of the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado with the 2.7L Turbo is 380 pounds less than the current Silverado with the 4.3L V-6, despite having more interior room and cargo space.

Standard on LT and RST trims, the 2.7L engine offers 14 percent more torque and 13 percent better city fuel economy and it is more than a full second quicker 0-60 mph than the 4.3L V-6 it replaces. The Silverado city fuel economy also exceeds the standard 3.3L V-6 engine offering in the Ford F-150 XLT (EPA-estimated 19 mpg city) and matches that of the Ram 1500 3.6L V-6 mild hybrid (EPA-estimated 20 mpg city).

The new 2.7L Turbo engine delivers an SAE-certified 310 horsepower and 348 lb-ft of torque, exceeding Ford’s 3.3L V-6 and Ram’s 3.6L V-6 mild hybrid by 31 percent and 29 percent respectively.

Interesting that this press release talks about 2wd and how it stacks up against the 2wd competition and yet the picture is of a 4x4. ?

One must wonder how the 4x4 with the Turbo 4 banger stacks up against the Ram and Ford V6 4x4 systems.

[regfootball]

9 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

I think GM is just trying to prove that a 4-cylinder pickup could sell.  Still, I'd rather have a 6 even if it is a smaller turbo one like the Ford 2.7T. 

I think all that is really happening is GM is just getting it into production into something, to justify the investment.  Like Ford did with the Ecoboost v6's they just started stuffing them into a bunch of things and after awhile they sold enough to make it worth the while.  So even if they eventually plan to sell more of them, i think they just are fine for now to get a few out into the wild for 'real world testing', and I do think the Colorado gets its eventually too.

It would have been nice to see the highway mpg go up a couple.  I really love the new Silverado and TBH if I were just leasing a cheap new one, the 4 cylinder will be ok for the likes of me who don't tow or haul.  I would want to do a real world acceleration test first though.  I would probably like the low end torque.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20181010/BLOG06/181019878

 

Quote

GM's 2.7-liter turbo engine is in the wrong truck

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by regfootball

[G. David Felt]

3 minutes ago, regfootball said:

I think all that is really happening is GM is just getting it into production into something, to justify the investment.  Like Ford did with the Ecoboost v6's they just started stuffing them into a bunch of things and after awhile they sold enough to make it worth the while.  So even if they eventually plan to sell more of them, i think they just are fine for now to get a few out into the wild for 'real world testing', and I do think the Colorado gets its eventually too.

It would have been nice to see the highway mpg go up a couple.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20181010/BLOG06/181019878

Weird as they also quote a combined 21mpg when the GM Media press release does not state a combined MPG and it seems 50/50 between various media sites that say 21 or 20. Clearly something stinks in Denmark about the combined MPG. ? 

I also agree with you that this motor should go Stat into the canyon / colorado and not wait.

[regfootball]

I think what you posted, the 4 cylinder being a full second quicker than the v6 is important too.

I see a LOT of comments to articles on chevy trucks where people say the 5.3 v8 is quite a bit slower than the 6.2, and so really, the v6 is not quick, the 5.3, the  truck owners even bitch about.  So the four cylinder is faster than the six and lets find out if its better for general driving than the 5.3.

the 2.7 might be an efficient engine, but the new Silverado has a huge hood and grille and is quite the brick.  Hard to get mpg improvements even with the weight cutting, when the shape is as defiant as any out there.  Aerodynamics hurts highway mpg more than city I would think.

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by regfootball

[balthazar]

But you cannot gauge .cd by appearances.

[regfootball]

it may have slightly improved technical number for cd but the size of the front end is yes visually larger than the 18

edit, i have actually seen this thing up close a few times now, and sat in it, and seen next to an 18.

Edited October 11, 2018 by regfootball

[balthazar]

I've seen them up close & right next to an '18 also. Yep, they are slightly taller, but that's still zero correlation that they have worse aerodynamics. 'Visually' is irrelevant.

[G. David Felt]

@regfootball @balthazar

Any chance one of you guys could next time take a tape measure and with them side by side have the tape measure to see the difference in width and height so we know which brick face is blocking airflow more?

[balthazar]

Quote

...which brick face is blocking airflow more?

Again- dimensional differences are not going to tell you that. But spec sheets say the '18 CC/SB 4x4 is 73.8-in high, the '19 is 75.4-in. Width is 80.0 on the '18 and 81.2-in on the '19.

I can tell you this- the 4x4 '19 1500 is many inches higher at the bedrail than my 2500HD 4x4 is. I can reach small items on the bed floor of mine standing on the ground- not so on the '19. I know part of the 'class leading bed volume' is straight up taller bed walls. dfelt- you might have no problem, but I'm not 6' 28" tall.

Edited October 11, 2018 by balthazar

[ocnblu]

It's like an airship.  Giant but lightweight.  I am waiting impatiently to see driving impressions of the 4.3 in the new truck.  I am just not feeling the turbo 4 unless it were in the Colorado/Canyon, and even then I do not see but maybe one or two MPG more EPA rating in the smaller truck.

[G. David Felt]

The GMC still looks WAY BETTER than it's Chevrolet sister.

 

 

[regfootball]

The hood and grille are taller and higher. The overall roof. Maybe not. I don’t see aerodynamics on the 19 contributing to any fe improvements. Whom amongst you has seen these side by side and touched them. In person the new truck has a more imposing and massive front.  

 

if there are aerodynamic improvements to this truck it is likely they gained it more from the underside of the vehicle than anything else. . 

Edited October 11, 2018 by regfootball

[ccap41]

It's like people think they can tell what is more aero efficient based solely on looks...

Quick summary: 7% more aerodynamically efficient than the outgoing model.

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/07/2019-silverado-aero-enhancing-air-curtains-feature-spotlight/

[regfootball]

  https://www.quora.com/What-is-aerodynamic-efficiency-and-what-are-the-parameters-required-to-calculate-it

 

if you google the term ‘aerodynamic effieciency’ It is not necessarily a term that relates to fuel efficiency as much as it does lift and drag. And there’s not a clear cut definition of it. So it might help the truck stay glued to the road. It’s a term that in this case may be used as a marketing buzz term as much as anything. 

 

It says imroving fuel fuel economy but it doesn’t say ‘vs the 2018’  it can merely mean  having the curtains on the 2019 over the wheels increased aerodynamics vs not having them on the 2019. The front end got larger so to offset that, they needed to add the curtains to offset the drag of the front wheels they didn’t have on the 18  got it  

 

marketing and and communications folks love to create press releases that can make a claim sound like something that sometimes stretches truth  

So the Silverado has meat curtains. Ha

Edited October 11, 2018 by regfootball

[balthazar]

8 hours ago, regfootball said:

Whom amongst you has seen these side by side and touched them. In person the new truck has a more imposing and massive front. 

Me! Yeah- it is taller & it looks taller. No one is challenging that, but the question of aero improvements was brought up...

[regfootball]

hey that story was from GM "authority" lol, i now am in full 100% agreement.

[regfootball]

THAT DARN GMAUTHORITY!  I swear I didn't see this till now!  hence, the meat curtains

 

"Why didn’t the fuel economy figures move more dramatically? Drag coefficient of an area. While the 2019 Silverado boasts a drag coefficient that is 7 percent improved over the old truck, its surface area has increased. The truck’s face has increased, which means the pickup has to cut a larger hole through the air, and that requires more energy to move the Silverado and cut through a greater resistance."

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2018/10/2019-silverado-fuel-economy-2-7l-turbo-engine-returns-21-mpg-combined/#ixzz5TgGOVwpv

Edited October 12, 2018 by regfootball

[Robert Hall]

Not sure why trucks need such a large, blunt front end.      I wonder how much taller the nose of the that Sierra is than one from 30 years ago...the top of the hood of an '88 Sierra would probably be at the bottom of the GMC badge on the new one. 

Maybe in the future we will see trucks with a longer, tapered nose that's about 6-10 inches lower at the edge of the hood.    Make the front more like the Corvette, ditch the monster grilles. 

[balthazar]

Quote

Because while there’s less drag coefficient, the fascia of the truck has significantly increased, forcing the truck to punch a bigger hole through the air as it moves down the road at speed.

Define 'significantly'. I believe it's more visual that actual.

Found this pic- all the yellow lines are dead horizontal. Cowl is a bit higher, chin ever so slightly lower, but overall they're extremely close, not significantly different. The biggest change is at the leading edge of the hood- that's noticably higher on the newer one, but that's not necc a direct correlation to 'punching a bigger hole' since it's within the cross sectional silhouette.

Edited October 12, 2018 by balthazar

[balthazar]

23 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Not sure why trucks need such a large, blunt front end...

Maybe in the future we will see trucks with a longer, tapered nose that's about 6-10 inches lower at the edge of the hood.  Make the front more like the Corvette, ditch the monster grilles. 

Don't know if you recall how Ford got burned a bit with their '97 redesign, which was along the lines you suggest. I assume that during the lead time for unveiling the '97s, it was not yet clear how the '94 & up Dodge was steady raking in increasing market share with the 'big rig' look. Ford's next generation was an about face.

It's 20 years later, but car & truck styling hasn't moved it's needle much in that time span, and 'butch' trucks are what sells. Truck buyers aren't looking for a 'Corvette SIlverado', and neither are Corvette buyers... but I'd welcome some visual proposals.

[ccap41]

21 hours ago, regfootball said:

Whom amongst you has seen these side by side and touched them. In person the new truck has a more imposing and massive front.  

I have also looked at and sat in the new truck, parked next to the last gen. 

[ccap41]

2500 size comparison

 

[G. David Felt]

59 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

2500 size comparison

 

Thank you 

OK, you have that stupid rubber piece below, but probably helps with airflow. hood is a bit taller, but windshield looks smaller. Over all top of the trucks look the same. Honestly, without some sort of measuring tool, I doubt anyone would ever really know there is a change in the drag coefficient.

Thank you again for posting, this is great.

[Drew Dowdell]

The new 1500 is about an inch taller than the outgoing 1500. (from memory)

They made the hood taller so they could shorten hood length to increase cab size without an impact to the overall length.   Basically, they stretched the truck upwards in an effort to give more passenger and cargo room without making the truck longer. 

[balthazar]

Truck is longer too. Going to use my '04s numbers, cause they're handy :
'04 CC/standard box :: WB: 153" overall: 237.3"
'19 CC/standard box :: WB: 157" overall: 241.2"

Maybe the '18s had been slightly shorter, IDK.
 

Edited October 12, 2018 by balthazar

[Drew Dowdell]

I was unclear. It's something like gaining 4 inches of cab room with only a 1 inch increase in length or something like that. I don't have the numbers handy either, but the jist of it is that the cab size increase does not have a corresponding truck length increase.

[balthazar]

Gotcha.
Better packaging.

[A Horse With No Name]

On 10/10/2018 at 11:36 AM, ccap41 said:

It's not a bad option but I don't know why one would choose this over the 5.3 or Ford's 2.7. 

Quoted for absolute truth.

[regfootball]

19 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Not sure why trucks need such a large, blunt front end.      I wonder how much taller the nose of the that Sierra is than one from 30 years ago...the top of the hood of an '88 Sierra would probably be at the bottom of the GMC badge on the new one. 

Maybe in the future we will see trucks with a longer, tapered nose that's about 6-10 inches lower at the edge of the hood.    Make the front more like the Corvette, ditch the monster grilles. 

truck owners think if their grille is large and blunt, people will think they have a huge package.

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Quoted for absolute truth.

the 5.3 doesn't have the best rep and the 2.7 is a ford, and who wants a Ford......

[A Horse With No Name]

18 minutes ago, regfootball said:

truck owners think if their grille is large and blunt, people will think they have a huge package.

the 5.3 doesn't have the best rep and the 2.7 is a ford, and who wants a Ford......

I am not going to answer the Ford thing...I have ranted enough for ten lifetimes on THAT subject.

[G. David Felt]

1 hour ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I am not going to answer the Ford thing...I have ranted enough for ten lifetimes on THAT subject.

Friend, Ya just did!  

[Scout]

3 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

On 10/10/2018 at 8:36 AM, ccap41 said:

It's not a bad option but I don't know why one would choose this over the 5.3 or Ford's 2.7. 

Quoted for absolute truth.

Because GM will probably shove it into as much as possible, while making the 5.3 a price premium over it. Then offer it on almost every trim level to get them into more.  Kinda like Ford does with the Eco VS the 5.0. You know, the exact opposite of what they do with the diesel. 

So people wouldn't exactly be choosing it as much as it's what's available without costing more. 

 

I could be wrong though. 

[regfootball]

2 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

I am not going to answer the Ford thing...I have ranted enough for ten lifetimes on THAT subject.

Yeah. I had my ford phase. Just kinda don’t wanna anymore any time soon. 

The 2.7 will be like the traverse 2.0. They’ll sit on lots for awhile. Unless they incentivize and bonus tag the poop out of them. 

Edited October 13, 2018 by regfootball

[balthazar]

2 hours ago, regfootball said:

truck owners think if their grille is large and blunt, people will think they have a huge package.

... because the OEMs offer both a low, sleek, sporty front clip and a chiseled, upright clip, and everyone is going for the chiseled clip. Yea, that's how it works.

[Scout]

5 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

truck owners think if their grille is large and blunt, people will think they have a huge package.

I'm so freaking tired of that argument / stereotype.  I'm not going to go on another rant about it right at the moment but maybe when I have more time,,,,

[ocnblu]

YEAH, good things (as well as dynamite!) come in small packages

Edited October 15, 2018 by ocnblu

[A Horse With No Name]

10 hours ago, regfootball said:

Yeah. I had my ford phase. Just kinda don’t wanna anymore any time soon. 

 

Welcome my friend.

8 hours ago, Scout said:

I'm so freaking tired of that argument / stereotype.  I'm not going to go on another rant about it right at the moment but maybe when I have more time,,,,

Somehow the quote tag got in my name. I never said that. 

[balthazar]

'truck = overcompensation' ranks right up there with 'camaro = mullet'.

[Drew Dowdell]

Truck overcompensation only comes into play when they are excessively and garishly modified. (Stacks, excessive lift kits, tacked on turbo whistles, etc etc)

[A Horse With No Name]

On 10/13/2018 at 1:48 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Truck overcompensation only comes into play when they are excessively and garishly modified. (Stacks, excessive lift kits, tacked on turbo whistles, etc etc)

The truck overcompensation I would like is an Ls6 1970 El Camino...in honor of our once frequent member.

Maybe a camper Special 396 powered half ton as a garage mate.

Overcompensation is not always bad.

 

[Robert Hall]

On 10/13/2018 at 1:48 PM, Drew Dowdell said:

Truck overcompensation only comes into play when they are excessively and garishly modified. (Stacks, excessive lift kits, tacked on turbo whistles, etc etc)

Yeah, kind of the 'brodozer' stereotype...saw a lot of those in the Phoenix area, useless douchebags driving huge trucks on 33 tires w/ ugly wheels, cheesy custom grilles and lighting, etc.. probably never once went off road, just driving around town.   I remember there was a dealer or two in Scottsdale that specialized in them--had a row of new/slightly used F150s, Rams, GM pickups lifted with tasteless cheesy mods.   Then there are coal-rolling diesel douchebags with the  foot wide stack in the bed...

Edited October 16, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[Drew Dowdell]

2 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Yeah, kind of the 'brodozer' stereotype...saw a lot of those in the Phoenix area, useless douchebags driving huge trucks on 33 tires w/ ugly wheels, cheesy custom grilles and lighting, etc.. probably never once went off road, just driving around town.   I remember there was a dealer or two in Scottsdale that specialized in them--had a row of new/slightly used F150s, Rams, GM pickups lifted with tasteless cheesy mods.   Then there are coal-rolling diesel douchebags with the  foot wide stack in the bed...

yeah, those are the ones I'm talking about.

Not the ones who go out and buy a Denali and just put fancy rims on it.