Jump to content
William Maley

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just another probable point that the EPA cycle doesn't do a good job of showing real world gas use.

and another that any company can claim the cycles aren't representative.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how this engine option is accepted by the market.   Still seems like a radical idea to have a 4cyl in a full size truck..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been stated herr already... the sweet, familiar 4.3 marches on.

Share this post


Link to post
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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Guest
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.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      General Motors' lost $2.9 billion in profit due to the strike according to the company's Q3 earnings report released Tuesday.  That number exceeded analyst estimates by $900 million. In the final two weeks of the strike, as further plants had to be shut down due to parts shortages, the company lost $750 million.  The total loss is about $2.00 per share. The stock is up 4.71 percent over Monday's close at the time of this writing.
      The strike hit 31 factories and 21 other facilities including plants in Canada and Mexico which build the Chevrolet Equinox and Chevrolet Blazer respectively. Both plants were forced to shut down due to parts shortages caused by striking workers in the U.S.
       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      General Motors' lost $2.9 billion in profit due to the strike according to the company's Q3 earnings report released Tuesday.  That number exceeded analyst estimates by $900 million. In the final two weeks of the strike, as further plants had to be shut down due to parts shortages, the company lost $750 million.  The total loss is about $2.00 per share. The stock is up 4.71 percent over Monday's close at the time of this writing.
      The strike hit 31 factories and 21 other facilities including plants in Canada and Mexico which build the Chevrolet Equinox and Chevrolet Blazer respectively. Both plants were forced to shut down due to parts shortages caused by striking workers in the U.S.
       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The UAW has announced that their membership has ratified the new 4-year contract deal with General Motors 23,389 to 17,501.  Roughly 46,000 union members will receive an $11,000 ratification bonus while temporary workers will get $4,500. 
      According to GM, work is to resume Monday with the first shift, however GM was attempting to get volunteers to start production earlier on Saturday and Sunday at Flint Assembly and Fort Wayne Assembly where the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado are built. 
      The strike, which lasted roughly 6 weeks, cost the company $450 million per week. 
      The new agreement includes:
      No increase in healthcare contribution, retaining the current 3% rate 3% wage increases or 4% lump sum payments each of the 4 years of the contract $11,000 signing bonus to union employees, $4,500 for temporary employees $7.7 billion in investments in U.S. manufacturing plants, including Detroit-Hamtramck, a plant originally slated for closure Enhanced employee profit sharing with no cap A clear path for temporary employees to become permanent after three years of service beginning January 2020.
      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The UAW has announced that their membership has ratified the new 4-year contract deal with General Motors 23,389 to 17,501.  Roughly 46,000 union members will receive an $11,000 ratification bonus while temporary workers will get $4,500. 
      According to GM, work is to resume Monday with the first shift, however GM was attempting to get volunteers to start production earlier on Saturday and Sunday at Flint Assembly and Fort Wayne Assembly where the GMC Sierra and Chevrolet Silverado are built. 
      The strike, which lasted roughly 6 weeks, cost the company $450 million per week. 
      The new agreement includes:
      No increase in healthcare contribution, retaining the current 3% rate 3% wage increases or 4% lump sum payments each of the 4 years of the contract $11,000 signing bonus to union employees, $4,500 for temporary employees $7.7 billion in investments in U.S. manufacturing plants, including Detroit-Hamtramck, a plant originally slated for closure Enhanced employee profit sharing with no cap A clear path for temporary employees to become permanent after three years of service beginning January 2020.
    • By Drew Dowdell
      As part of General Motors' tentative agreement with the United Auto Workers, there is a planned $3 billion investment into the Detroit-Hamtramck plant to make electric trucks, SUVs, and vans. The program, called BT1 is part of a larger $7.7 billion investment in GM's plants over the next four years. 
      The BT1 program includes an electric truck for GMC and an electric SUV for Cadillac for the 2023 model year. But before that happens, in 2021 a low volume BT1 pickup will start production under a different brand while a performance truck follows in 2022, and then an electric SUV in 2023.  Rumor has it that these low volume BT1 vehicles could be sold under the Hummer brand, not used since 2010, but that decision has not been finalized.
      If GM did bring the Hummer brand back as an EV brand, it would have instant name brand recognition and a leg up on rival startup Rivian who has a truck due out in 2020. GM would not need to spend as much money to market the brand.
      The vehicles on the new BT1 platform would use a "skateboard" architecture that bundles the batteries and electric motor together. The architecture is highly flexible allowing GM to build vehicles in front, rear, or all-wheel drive configurations. 

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...