- Thread starter plowhand
- Start date
Russ from MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Bemidji MN
Are you sure it wasn't a Colorado or a Canyon? They look pretty big.
Sean Feeney
Well-known Member
Started couple years ago over 300hp
OregonAaron
Member
A co-worker of mine has a turbo diesel Chevy Colorado. He really, really likes it!
John M
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nunyafn business
Rumor mill has it 2021 will have a turbo charged V6 as an option rated at 325.
John M
Well-known Member
- Location
- Nunyafn business
My dealer told me they get horrid mileage, have had tons of issues, and simply dont sell. They have one new one on the lot, and 4 that have been traded in.
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
GM is just trying to catch up with Ford.
Again
gearheadbill
Member
I have a neighbor who has a Silverado with the V6 duramax and really likes it . Says it gets good fuel mileage and has plenty of power. I know it is quiet when they drive by.
Russ from MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Bemidji MN
You were right, I should of googled it first, sorry!
The engine under the hood of the 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation is a turbocharged 2.7-litre four-cylinder unit mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission. It produces 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque. On paper, this kind of output is more than decent.
The engine under the hood of the 2019 GMC Sierra 1500 Elevation is a turbocharged 2.7-litre four-cylinder unit mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission. It produces 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque. On paper, this kind of output is more than decent.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Ill stay with the 6.2L .
Full disclosure I have a Ford 3.5 ecoboost and am happy with it.
BUT the only way to increase efficiency is to increase engine efficiency. You cant make a smaller engine and say it will get better fuel economy. You might gain a small amount from less engine friction but a truck requires the same amount to power to achieve its task. Gas can be rated in btus and its the easiest way to think about truck power I think. The smaller engine needs the same btus of energy to accomplish the task which means the smaller engine will use about the same fuel as the v8 to accomplish the task.
Theres no free energy out there.
Footnote, you can increase efficiency by things like turbos hp fuel, leaner burn, compression ratio... This post is purely about engine displacement.
BUT the only way to increase efficiency is to increase engine efficiency. You cant make a smaller engine and say it will get better fuel economy. You might gain a small amount from less engine friction but a truck requires the same amount to power to achieve its task. Gas can be rated in btus and its the easiest way to think about truck power I think. The smaller engine needs the same btus of energy to accomplish the task which means the smaller engine will use about the same fuel as the v8 to accomplish the task.
Theres no free energy out there.
Footnote, you can increase efficiency by things like turbos hp fuel, leaner burn, compression ratio... This post is purely about engine displacement.
rustyfarmall
Well-known Member
And THAT is a sad, sad thing to do. Ford SHOULD be trying to catch up to GM, instead of trying to reinvent the wheel.
Ken Macfarlane
Well-known Member
You absolutely can make a smaller engine and say it will get better fuel economy.
If you look at an efficiency map of the engine, large naturally aspirated engines operate pretty far off the sweet spot under light load of normal driving. Smaller the engine the closer you can get to the lowest brake specific fuel consumption.
This is principal behind the cylinder deactivation on the various v-8's, they improve the engine efficiency at low hp requirements by increasing the operating pressures/temperatures in the remaining cylinders. Even while suffering the friction
loss of spinning 4 dead cylinders around it still improves efficiency.
If you look at an efficiency map of the engine, large naturally aspirated engines operate pretty far off the sweet spot under light load of normal driving. Smaller the engine the closer you can get to the lowest brake specific fuel consumption.
This is principal behind the cylinder deactivation on the various v-8's, they improve the engine efficiency at low hp requirements by increasing the operating pressures/temperatures in the remaining cylinders. Even while suffering the friction
loss of spinning 4 dead cylinders around it still improves efficiency.
Agree....the 4.3 V6 in my 2018 shows a lifetime average of 25 mpg over 30000 miles, ten thousand of which was pulling a 21 foot trailer. The 4 cylinder engine is an extra cost option and the V6 is the standard or base engine. The very slight increase in fuel savings may never be enough to recover the extra cost of the smaller engine.
Ben
Ben
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
Less friction??
How about a more complete burn in order to get as much work out of the btu's contained in a unit of fuel?
Fuel injection, computerized engine management, etc. etc. has made massive improvements in hp, torque and fuel economy.I
As well as automatic transmission technology and with more than double the gears than the engine bolted to them.
Are you too young to remember driving behind a carburated car/truck and being gassed from all the unburned, wasted gasoline?
I literally talked about improvements in engine efficiency in a prior post, my comment wasnt about improvements in internal combustion engines it was that a 4 cylinder saves a small amount of fuel over a v8 with the same final drive due to the increased load on the 4 cylinder to maintain the same performance.
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
Not shown on the silverado website for 2021.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
Long ago, I was told that there is no substitute for cubic inches. The one exception to that is the trusty old supercharger. Now, superchargers come in several forms. There are belt driven, chain driven, gear driven, and exhaust driven.
The exhaust driven ones are known as turbochargers. They have an advantage as they are dependent on demand. They also have a disadvantage in that they require higher octane fuel. A supercharger increases the volume of air entering the engine thus increasing the volumetric efficiency of the engine. At 14.7 psi of boost, that 2.7 liter engine becomes equivalent to a 5.4 liter engine. That 8 to 1 compression ratio becomes 16 to 1.
But, the laws of physics will prevail. It will still take the same amount of fuel to do the same amount of work. That is, unless engines can become more efficient in their use of energy. We do seem to have reached a plateau in terms of efficiency. Electronics, direct fuel injection, and a host of innovations have improved efficiency somewhat, but we are still waiting for the next big breakthrough.
And, to those still beating that tired old drum about electric vehicles, lotsa luck! The electricity to run them has to come from somewhere. No matter how you slice it, energy is energy, and there are no free rides. With all of the losses in between the generating station and your vehicle's battery, I don't see any improvement in economy. Nor do I see any reduction of pollutants. They just move them to a more central location.
The exhaust driven ones are known as turbochargers. They have an advantage as they are dependent on demand. They also have a disadvantage in that they require higher octane fuel. A supercharger increases the volume of air entering the engine thus increasing the volumetric efficiency of the engine. At 14.7 psi of boost, that 2.7 liter engine becomes equivalent to a 5.4 liter engine. That 8 to 1 compression ratio becomes 16 to 1.
But, the laws of physics will prevail. It will still take the same amount of fuel to do the same amount of work. That is, unless engines can become more efficient in their use of energy. We do seem to have reached a plateau in terms of efficiency. Electronics, direct fuel injection, and a host of innovations have improved efficiency somewhat, but we are still waiting for the next big breakthrough.
And, to those still beating that tired old drum about electric vehicles, lotsa luck! The electricity to run them has to come from somewhere. No matter how you slice it, energy is energy, and there are no free rides. With all of the losses in between the generating station and your vehicle's battery, I don't see any improvement in economy. Nor do I see any reduction of pollutants. They just move them to a more central location.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
People can talk smack and make announcements all they like. That does not make it achievable or realistic. Let me remind you of a few announcements from teh past that never came to be...
Somewhere around the late 1970s, Chrysler announced that they were converting their entire lineup of vehicles to front wheel drive. Now, in 2020, a large number of their vehicles are rear wheel drive. Among them are the Charger, the 300, and the Challenger. So much for that announcement.
Sometime in the 1970s, we were told that by the 1990s, we would run out of gasoline. How did that one work out?
Again in the 1970s, we were told that by 1984, we would have a paperless society because of computers. I couldn't tell by that stack of paper that comes in my mailbox every single day.
Also, lest we forget - back in the 1980s, GM was in danger of collapsing because of their bull-headed management that thought they could tell consumers what to buy instead of making the cars that people wanted. Chevrolet was the best salesman that Toyota ever had.
So, to those radical announcements I say, how would like your crow? With or without ketchup?
Somewhere around the late 1970s, Chrysler announced that they were converting their entire lineup of vehicles to front wheel drive. Now, in 2020, a large number of their vehicles are rear wheel drive. Among them are the Charger, the 300, and the Challenger. So much for that announcement.
Sometime in the 1970s, we were told that by the 1990s, we would run out of gasoline. How did that one work out?
Again in the 1970s, we were told that by 1984, we would have a paperless society because of computers. I couldn't tell by that stack of paper that comes in my mailbox every single day.
Also, lest we forget - back in the 1980s, GM was in danger of collapsing because of their bull-headed management that thought they could tell consumers what to buy instead of making the cars that people wanted. Chevrolet was the best salesman that Toyota ever had.
So, to those radical announcements I say, how would like your crow? With or without ketchup?
gearheadbill
Member
I had also the old saying, ‘There is no replacement for displacement.’ But not too long ago an instructor in a schooling said that is no longer true, now it is ‘There is no replacement for technology.’
rlp in Co.
Well-known Member
The 2 cycle Detroits were good engines, but they don't have the fuel efficiency that a 4 cycle engine does.
caterpillar guy
Well-known Member
Yup and all those pickup engines are hp at high rpms. Slow those engines down to a reasonable speed and they are like the old double breasted Yamaha's all wind and no go. No torque low hill climbing abiliy. They didn't call them hill sniffers for nothing. And yes it may waste a small amount of fuel to run a bigger engine tooling around but when it comes to pulling the big engine shines as it goes pulling the load with little effort while the little engine is being worked to death to do the same job with the same load. You can't make an M pull 6 bottom just because you put a turbocharger on it. And you can run an auger with a 1206 while the M finishes it's job, so you can switch to match load to engine.
I was in the ford dealer last spring/winter and the kid was bragging about his puke a boost. I told him there is no replacement for displacement. IF you want to load it like a boxcar and drive it like a racecar you have to have the engine to do it. Lawnmower engines will not cut it.
I was in the ford dealer last spring/winter and the kid was bragging about his puke a boost. I told him there is no replacement for displacement. IF you want to load it like a boxcar and drive it like a racecar you have to have the engine to do it. Lawnmower engines will not cut it.
Farmer Rock
Member
I have always felt there is no replacement for displacement.Why would I buy an engine that's half the size and worked twice as hard as a v8.I guess it's alright for people who just use it as a daily driver,but those engines won't hold up to a life of real hard work.They are trying to squeeze every last bit of life out of those engines.
Rock
Rock
I find the comments on here about turbo's never working on gasser's entertaining, while they are fine with turbo's on Diesel's. This technology has been on gasser's in Europe for more than 20 years. The days of big displacement are gone, technology is allowing smaller engines to produce the HP and torque needed.
I agree.
I suppose this is a hot topic. I keep talking about how there is very little gain in fuel economy with a smaller engine. They dont understand that as stated before theoretically if you make 14.7 psi of boat you are doubling the size of the engine. The ecoboost has more things to fail and is working harder, but it was designed to work harder and not wear out. Its not like they just slapped a turbo on a NA engine. The 3.5 ecoboost actually makes more torque at a lower rpm than the 5.0. I think both motors are fine but you cant fault someone for their choice when both are fit for the task. I question the 4 cyl gm truck engine though, purely because I feel like it will have Highway gears and no towing capacity.
Lyndon - AB
Member
I'll just leave this here. There's a few exceptions here, but quite of few of you would fall into this category.
Cheers!
Weight reduction is still a significant factor in fuel economy. Smaller displacement engines use smaller engine components which saves engine weight which in turn allows lighter suspensions to be used, saving more weight.
Vehicle requirements vary between different areas. Electric vehicles would probably work well for most people who live in cities, suburbs, medium and small towns as well as for those that live close to town and only need to drive less than 50 miles per day. That could be 60 to 90+ percent of the market for some vehicles.
Vehicle requirements vary between different areas. Electric vehicles would probably work well for most people who live in cities, suburbs, medium and small towns as well as for those that live close to town and only need to drive less than 50 miles per day. That could be 60 to 90+ percent of the market for some vehicles.
jimg.allentown
Well-known Member
There is a lot more to it than just a smaller engine working harder.
Turbocharging is more than just hanging a turbo on a stock assembly line engine. Everything is different from the basic block on up.
Blocks are made of stronger alloys to keep them from cracking or flexing. Rotating parts like crankshafts are forged instead of cast. Reciprocating parts like connecting rods and pistons are made of stronger materials and are forged rather than cast. Electronics are programmed to get the most reliable performance and durability. All in all, a turbocharged engine is a completely different engine than a naturally aspirated engine. Most likely they will outlast a naturally aspirated engine.
Another poster made a comment about turbos on gas versus diesel. The big difference here is the nature of the engines. A diesel does not throttle the air intake while a gas engine does. That means that a diesel has a higher flow rate and higher gas volume driving the turbo at lower speeds. This makes a diesel more naturally suited to turbocharging because the turbo will spool up faster than on a gas engine. That is the reason that there is a "turbo lag" on a gas engine in many cases. That calls for a different driving technique for a turbocharged gas engine - keep the RPMs up.
The big advantage of smaller turbocharged engines is that if you drive them "gently," they should use less fuel because you are feeding a smaller engine. Once you start putting your foot down, the advantages of a smaller engine disappear.
Turbocharging is more than just hanging a turbo on a stock assembly line engine. Everything is different from the basic block on up.
Blocks are made of stronger alloys to keep them from cracking or flexing. Rotating parts like crankshafts are forged instead of cast. Reciprocating parts like connecting rods and pistons are made of stronger materials and are forged rather than cast. Electronics are programmed to get the most reliable performance and durability. All in all, a turbocharged engine is a completely different engine than a naturally aspirated engine. Most likely they will outlast a naturally aspirated engine.
Another poster made a comment about turbos on gas versus diesel. The big difference here is the nature of the engines. A diesel does not throttle the air intake while a gas engine does. That means that a diesel has a higher flow rate and higher gas volume driving the turbo at lower speeds. This makes a diesel more naturally suited to turbocharging because the turbo will spool up faster than on a gas engine. That is the reason that there is a "turbo lag" on a gas engine in many cases. That calls for a different driving technique for a turbocharged gas engine - keep the RPMs up.
The big advantage of smaller turbocharged engines is that if you drive them "gently," they should use less fuel because you are feeding a smaller engine. Once you start putting your foot down, the advantages of a smaller engine disappear.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy