Home Forums Gear Hunting Trucks and Four-Wheel Drives Chevy or GMC 1500 with the 4 cylinder

That little 4 is a heck of a motor. And 26psi is a lot of squish.

What ever happened to GM’s 4.?ltr in-line 6? That could have been a heck of a motor with forced induction.

Probably worse mpg than the 6+ltr v8’s though.

The Atlas series were well designed engines. Yes, the i6 Vortec 4200 could be made to run hard with forced induction. In stock form it performed close enough to the 5.3 V8 while returning much better fuel economy.
The problem was the length of an inline 6 cylinder engine, it didn't fit in an engine bay designed for a four cylinder long V8. When the GMT360 platform died, so did the i6.

Look at the service costs you'll have coming up on those used trucks. The high output small turbo engines had some expensive service and maintenance parts at 75-100,000 miles compared to the 5.3 when I was truck shopping 4 years ago.

Haha, you fkn big twatt. 'Jeez you got a big pussy, Jeez you got a big pussy....why'd you say that twice?'...

I think we agree on more than we don't. The 2.7 doesn't vibe. It's nothing like the Bt's, spent a lot of time in gen 1 6bt's and love them to bits.

The only issue with the 3.0 durmax is it's a diesel lol. A ton of us don't want the emissions systems headaches, it's a lot of extra gear, fluids, shat to go wrong. Case in point, neighbor got the new duramax and I got the new 4-banger...we both do a lot of miles, him for work pulling light trailer, me and kids pulling light trailer most weekends for hunting and fishing year round. He's gone limp mode a few times and had to have in shop for fixes already. I haven't. I'm at about 40,000 miles now (60,000 kms). Just change the oil and rotate the tires.

So if I could get a deleted 3.0 I'd be all over it but Elon musk couldn't delete these new gm's computers. So the next best thing is that formula but in gas...which is the 2.7. One cat...which is basically attached to the back of the turbo which is attached to the side of the motor...not sure you could even steal that thing, well played gm.

If you were to blend the performance, economy and driving dynamics (relaxed low rpm) of the 3.0 and the 5.3 you get the 2.7t...absolutely brilliant. A lot of half ton buyers have no time for the diesel stuff, not all of them are 90% highway, a lot have to do stop/go daily duty. How fast does that diesel warm up? Would it be happy start and stop town work all the time? 2.7 warms up super fast, does it ALL at a high level including work and long miles and city start stop daily. The diesel is more of a one trick pony that's got a lot of fat no one wants to deal with down the road or from the get go. Gas all the way in half ton segment. Going gas with a truck formula was brilliant. It's almost like they took that right out of my brain while I was sleeping lol.

Now...as for your inline 6 better than inline 4 insinuation...is the 6bt better than the 4bt? or are they the same exact thing with one having 2 cylinders chopped off the end? Correct...exact same, one isn't better than the other.

The gm being a 4 instead of a 6 is because of the output level of a 3.0 inline 6 on gas is too high for their goals and as gm engineer said that less of bigger jugs are actually more efficient at driving the hairdryer. In other words why didn't they just gas-ify the the 3.0 as they are both built with same forged bottom ends and designed for those high boosted cylinder pressures etc? There's arguments for and against between these two and which one is smarter in design but their goals of power outputs dictated the configuration.

Anyway, the diesel doesn't even enter into the equation for most buyers now with the emissions bullsh1t. I wish, I would love to have that peak work at 1500 rpm, I loved the old bt power delivery and all of it just off idle. Too many trade offs now though. Guaranteed the 2.7t will do the most work for the lowest total cost of ownership and headaches of all the half ton engine options available right now. If you look at the entire segment and math it out...that 2.7t 4-banger is where the highest odds are of this.

You're all welcome lol.

couple reasons the 2.7t is the displacement that it is and that it is inline 4 instead of 5 or 6...

2.7 was the displacement needed to give the power levels they wanted for mid-size to half ton duty
inline 4 was chosen as bigger jugs drive the hairdryer more efficiently than smaller higher number of cylinders do

for perspective, if you took that 2.7t (2726cc) at 681.5cc per cylinder (5.3 is only 666cc btw ) and took that 310 hp and 430 ft/lbs torque dived by 4 you get 77.5 hp and 107.5 ft/lbs torque per cylinder. Now make it an inline 6...you end up with a 4.1 liter with 465 hp and 645 ft/lbs torque...sounds juicy but a bit much for a half ton platform. It would be perfect base in the 2500/3500's though...I'd be super down with that! and don't doubt that the future we may see something like that in the 2500/3500's as gas turbo should be what they're all working on right now for that segment! they are getting tired of the diesel emissions issues in that class also...but miss the boost performance and work dynamics so gas turbo is the future

next comments will be why don't they turbo the 5.3 or 6.2 or 6.6 in the 2500/3500's to give the guys who're done with diesel headaches and option, some even ask why not for 1/2 tons...doh, too much power for frame/transmission/running gear/brakes etc......look back at the output levels, lets say they target 1000 ft/lbs for that segment, well if the 2.7t gas needs 6.4 cc per ft/lb so you'd need 6.4 liter engine, in shorter stroke higher revving v8's currently the hp would likely end up too high for segment though and no as efficient if they could go inline, even with the same ratio of power to torque of the 2.7t with long stroke you'd end up about 727.3 hp for a 1000 ft/lb torque equal of about 6.4 litres of displacement...fun to math out, inline 6 like the cummins in the 5.9-6.7 liter displacement should land them in the torque range they want but go extra long stroke to keep the hp in check and more efficient for truck work, build a truck motor not a sports car motor please aim for 1/2 to 2/3rds hp/torque ratio for work motors

pretty sure cummins was working on a gas powered 6.7...that would be about perfect, they would have the best 2500/3500 truck motor as soon as it's released imo and it would sell well, hope ford and gm are working on similar

Cummins has just announced their X10 (10 liter) fuel agnostic motor, the second in the line after the X15. They have stated that a fuel agnostic b6.7 is next in the plans.

It sounds like Chevrolet is really on to something special with the 2.7 inline 4 cylinder. I never thought I would see the day that 4 cylinder would be this capable. Nonetheless, I can’t buy one, as I’m not part of the UAW family.

my son purchased a new Maverick last spring 2023 and pulls his 18 ft. boat with a 90 Mercury on it, the Maverick truck works great and still gets good gas mileage , that is a great little truck.

I wouldn’t go as far as calling it a TRUCK, but mine hauled 21 bags of feed tonight, the 2” pump with hoses and a can of fuel this morning. and another load of feed before that It’s a comparatively inexpensive solution for light duty pickup work, both in depreciation and operation. Fuel economy is in the high 20’s, and a set of tires is $600. We’ll see how long before the valves clog up from being direct injection and how long the turbos last.

If I need a truck, I’ll get one of the Kenworth’s…..

I just got my maverick for a daily also try and save the 2.7t for the weekend trailer adventures and I’m loving the sh1t out of it. My 2nd Ford ever, had an 84 tempo coupe back in the day.

It’s 0-60 is quicker than 90’s 5.0 mustangs and current Subaru wrx. It’s lively as reactive like a sports car and goes like one but has a booty and 4k tow package lol. Pretty smart little run about.

Currently with my chev 2.7t I just pulled my cargo camper build with dual diesel heaters, solar etc 400 miles and camping on ice in an ice fishing derby and we flew here as if empty. Passed lots of stuff. Living these boosted 4-bangers. Now I wanna build a lighter ice trailer for the maverick and get my total weight down to same as just my half ton without trailer when on ice lol. Current trailer 3000 lbs, 3” lifted, chev has 4” lift, hunt/fish as much as possible, logging 60 nights in it a year but still working full time and getting kids through high school. Our 4th trip this winter so far.

And yeah the mav is not a truck. Just a more useful sports car really. Trucklet? It’s like a blend of 90’s mini truck, Subaru baja and Subaru wrx.

Stankcoy you fkn suburbia dumbass. Crank/piston-rods/pistons have to be forged when you demand that much from a 4 cylinder engine.

Regarding the 4bt/6bt comparison, the 4bt didn't have the inherent balance of a 6bt. It was a rattle trap compared to a 6bt.

It's a cost cutting measure, to go 4 cylinder. Less machining, less forged components and less raw material

The 2.7 gets piss-poor fuel economy compared to the 3 0 inline 6, hauling equal loads. Like any gas engine would.

A 4 cylinder will never equal an inline six in a truck.

Man, it must suck being swayed by marketing literature and youtube videos, than actual mechanical experience........

Mavericks are for bull dikes.

Lol I tinted my windows on the maverick. They way I like to commute I don’t really wanna be seen. This maverick is a beast for this, hang on when you hit the skinny pedal and corners like a sports car and fit in the skinny lanes.

That’s right hillbilly. It doesn’t get as good a mileage as diesel. I told you it splits the performance and ECONOMY between the 5.3 and the 3.0. Its drive dynamics also splits. It’s smooth and it’s quiet, and has effortless whoosh. My 5.3 buddy always comments how quiet it is when he gets in it. For us hunting and fishing all the time and logging the long miles it’s a beauty option if you don’t want the headaches of diesels. Fuel economy is part of the equation and I’m not wrong in mathing out which of these will be lowest total cost of ownership. Remember it’s one of only two engines GM engineers couldn’t kill. It’s a truck motor, built for work. Less is always more when done right and this 2.7t is the epitome of that in half ton motor segment.

Yeah you got Alaska to try and hold over Alberta here but we get the weather too. I got my poor 2.7 to start after 1 hour plugged in at -40 after sitting for five days through -39 to -46. It wasn’t pretty and threw a few low volt codes the dealer had to clear but I was curious what it could do. I got 10 weekends on ice fishing last year in the trailer, can’t equal that this year due to later ice but this past one on cold lake with -20 lows she fired right up on auto start after 3 days of sitting. Obvious easy burger. I work and play all over the province. I don’t have to do all the winter prep you do it’s pretty rare with these modern gassers to need the block heater. You would need to do half the procedure to yours with this engine over the diesel...maybe you just found your next truck lol.

You’re welcome. Go drive one and tell me how rough it runs lol.

And it’s about cylinder pressures. Turbo Diesel still has more than boosted gas so that’s why the forged bottom end and built like the diesel with the hardest cylinder liners known to man. If you did your homework you’d know all this about this 2.7t, it’s built like a diesel because it’s basically the same thing just a different fuel type. Low compression ratio spark ignition vs high compression squish ignition. Not sure why you’re not about this motor? It’s all truck. They couldn’t go inline 6 on gas, would have been too small and revvy, less torque more hp and 3.0 too much displacement for boosted gas half ton power levels. Have a look at the new hurricane 3.0tt in-line 6 from dodge. Similar hp to torque numbers, 2 extra cylinders and 1 extra turbo, great sport car motor. It’s got too much power for mid segment half ton platforms and not enough for a 2500/3500 segment...swing and a miss dodge.

The 2.7t inline 4 with bigger jugs and longer stroke is the way to fly. At least dodge got one thing right by going inline but facked the rest of the formula...typical dodge.

Well there it is, if you can't start the truck unassisted in mild below zero temps without tripping a bunch of sensors, than GM didn't properly coldweather test the engine, and they still took your money. That's bllsht and I'd ask for a refund. The platform needs more development. If this happens again, don't flee to the dealer like a lost puppy dog, once the engine is warm, shut off truck, pull the positive battery cable, to reset the computer.

You and I have more in common than you know, youre just too green and soft to understand. The term you're lacking, is an undersquare engine, where the stroke is longer than the bore diameter of the cylinder. It's a good thing in a truck, and something everyone should desire, regardless of the cylinder count. Rarely, are V8's ever built undersquare. Only a couple recent ones come to mind: 7.3 powerstroke and the toyota 5.7.

I'm currently many thousands of dollars into BUILDING a custom gas truck. From axles to engine. And of course, I'm building an undersquare torque monster gasser that will start unassisted, in the coldest of temps.

I understand what Alberta is and isn't compared to Alaska. I ship boats there for moose/elk/bear hunters who must run lots of water, but still get good fuel economy.

Regarding your ice fishing by vehicle, thats cute and adorable! 2007 Iin between 2 Iraq deployments, I built a custom ice house that broke down into its own 2 fx8ft sled. We would snow machine 30-40 miles to remote locations and catch scores of burbot and Lakers.

Nowadays, I haul entire pike fishing camps by dog team, or even massive sheefish off the sea ice, by dog team as well. No beta male suburbia truck would get to where I go, baby boy.........

I think big talkers should post some pics or STFU.😁

F U Finger in pic for a Campfire identifier.🤣😂🤣

I think that's a marginally decent idea, so clarify some things. Are you "talkin" to me?

What is your name?

Are you mildly familiar with what I do? There's hundreds of thousands of dollars in film work already spent, following only a tiny slice of my crazy business. Pictures, why?

I haven’t found the line where it needs help to start. The auto start I tried before plugging in at -40c. Plugged in for an hour maybe hour and 15 and then push button started it. Poor thing wasn’t happy but that was a test. Note, skip the auto start. The under volt trip for engine light was no biggie, bugger sat in 39-46 below for 5 days, battery was low, no biggie, two seconds to reflash in the dealer drive thru. I suspect it will start daily at -30-35 but I’ll skip the auto starter next time I test it.

Lol almost went for a jet boat this year as I haven’t played that game yet since I’m just a wet behind the ears pup. Had my sheep stint and did my back country solo stuff already. Slowing down and into the being out there and started late with kids so trailer has been our adventure pod and we’ve filled the walls nicely with fish and hunt photos. Got into sturgeon last year, just got back from Lakers trip, already have 4 over 40” on pike this winter our best being 8 over. Prairies to mountain tops, I’ve done a lot of it but still lots to do yet.

I think of building a truck one day also and yes it would be gas as well. You’re probably building it lol. Closest I can get is this GM 2.7t currently. It was the easy button.

We have both motors 23 gmc with 2.7 and 24 gmc with 3.0. When it drops below 10 we plug our vehicles in. Both are great motors, both start up fine down here in south central cold weather.

John what is the 2.7 gas power like compaired to the 3.0 diesel?