Jump to content
Create New...

Chevrolet News:General Motors: Ignore the Fuel Economy Figures on Turbo-Four Silverado and Sierra

Recommended Posts

General Motors made a big deal about a new 2.7L turbo-four that would be available on the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 1500. This engine promises more power, better towing, and improved fuel economy when compared to the 4.3L V6 engine. But when the official fuel economy figures came out, the engine became somewhat less impressive.

The EPA rates the 2.7L turbo-four at 20 City/23 Highway/21 Combined for the 2WD variant and 19/22/20 for the 4WD variant. That isn't a huge improvement on the V6s found in the Ford F-150 and Ram 1500.

  • F-150 with 3.3L V6: 19/25/22 (2WD), 18/23/20 (4WD)
  • F-150 with 2.7L EcoBoost V6: 20/26/22 (2WD), 19/24/21 (4WD)
  • Ram 1500 with 3.6L V6: 20/25/22 (2WD), 19/24/21 (4WD)

"If you're delivering on everything, and you're getting the same fuel economy, the question is, 'Why?' " explained Stephanie Brinley, principal automotive analyst at IHS Markit.

Officials at GM say the EPA ratings don't tell the whole story on the new engine. Like a diesel engine, " fuel economy will be better in the real world than its predecessor and will at least match comparable V-6 models from competitors," they said.

"I don't think we're done with the fuel economy piece yet," said Tim Herrick, executive chief engineer of GM's full-size trucks to Automotive News.

"Don't look at the label. We're as good or better than them in every step."

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

View full article

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smk4565 said:

Unfortunately for GM people do look at the label.  

And when ever people say "we beat the label" well maybe Ford or Ram beats their label too.

Unfortunately, GM is competitive with the other brands as opposed to class-leading in the fuel efficiency department.  There are two ways to fix this: either cut weight (at least 700-1000 lbs.) or improve engine MPG.  Maybe that turbo 4cyl needs to be tuned better; alternatively maybe the 4.3 V6 was not as bad as rumored.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mick V.

I have a 2016 F-150 2WD SuperCab with the 2.7L V6 engine. 325 hp and 350 torque. Extremely impressive engine. It really accelerates, and in mixed driving, I am getting 22 mpg just about every tankful. On straight highway driving, it get 26 mpg. The Ford 2.3L 4cyl turbo, set to go into the 2019 Ranger, is supposed to do even better than that, mpg-wise. So Chevy's 20 City/23 Highway/21 Combined for its 2.7L 4cyl turbo is just not gonna cut it -- certainly with me and likely with many other buyers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See if this gets beat up in the Forums much like the EcoBoost from Ford does for not giving the stated gas mileage. People are going to enjoy the boost and the gas mileage will suffer. Common sense, you cannot have both fuel efficiency and power fun. Nothing has given that not even electric.

Takes power to move weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its really weird for them to come out and pretty much say EFF what the EPA says.. because for a looooong time I've been saying the exact same thing because of how I drive.

Fuel economy is a direct result of the vehicle's overall efficiency AND.. and this is HUGE.. the driver's driving style.. Take a driver like me and put me in a Chevy Volt or Prius .. expecting great fuel economy and U will be very disappointed. I DRIVE!!! and that's not some bull$h! BMW interface either. I used laugh my ass off when people would say the Corvette was a very efficient vehicle to drive daily.. I was like "shiiiiiiiid.. not if U out here doing 0-60 in 3.6secs.. or constantly in the 90-110 range" On REAL.. I have driven my Yukon and seen 21mpg over a full tank interval... , but that was driving it like an old woman in mixed driving.. and for the NEXT trip I drove like I DRIVE.. and that fuel economy was like 15-16 mpg. (Mind U I tuned out the V4 mode when I bought it so its always in V8)

Edited by Cmicasa the Great
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2018 at 3:11 PM, ccap41 said:

I've never really understood the issue with that.. Even non-boosted cars, if you're putting your foot into it you get bad fuel economy. 

Because it's hard to drive without putting your foot in it.  Stick a pebble in the turbo impeller and see how satisfying a 2.7 liter 4-cylinder Silverado is to drive. The boost is necessary even in average driving, and that is when you start to suck fuel. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.


Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search

Change privacy settings