That’s bad analogy. Its about half the engine size so it would be like putting in a 500-600cc two stroke engine in a harly sportster 1200, which to me sounds incredibly fun. There is no reason why modern tech can’t squeeze tons of power out of a turbo four, especially a rather large four. Can they do it reliably? We shall see.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Cylinder deactivation on a four-cylinder? This works on V8s without a feeling of "missing," deactivating the inner cylinders on one bank and the outer cylinders on the other bank, but taking out two cylinders will make a four rougher than a dried-out corncob. There must be some seriously absorbent engine mounts, possibly electronically controlled.

It doesnt just deactivate cylinders, it closes the intake and exhaust valves, the piston that is "shut down" still compresses on every stroke negating the misfire effect. Keeping engine balance in place.

My biggest concern with turbo engines is longevity. If you wind that rubber band that tight every time you drive, how long will it last? Trucks are not like cars, people drive them into the ground over 10-20 years. Chevy could end up really shooting themselves in the foot when these engines start to fail after a short time.

Apparently the exhaust manifold is cast integral to the head. I would like to think this eliminates a junction enhancing reliability, but this may increase cracking possibilities.

I hope they've done much testing at 10 percent overload at Death Valley temps with full throttle for long periods.

quote:

Originally posted by sadlerbw:
Back in the 80’s, BMW made a 1.5 liter turbo four for F1 that would put out 850hp for races and up to 1400hp for qualifying.

Yeah, at over 10,000 rpm. And torque out of those things? Haha, yeah right.

quote:

Originally posted by pbslinger:
Apparently the exhaust manifold is cast integral to the head. I would like to think this eliminates a junction enhancing reliability, but this may increase cracking possibilities.

I hope they've done much testing at 10 percent overload at Death Valley temps with full throttle for long periods.

Newer engines are doing this and have been for awhile, it decreases temps and increases power, like having match ported headers. Aluminum does a much better job of removing heat from the combustion chamber than steel. Its also surrounded by water jackets with coolant flowing through to dissipate temps even further.

This is being made for the 90% of pick up truck owners that have 1 person in the vehicle and nothing in the bed.

It's interesting that the displacement is the same as the 2.7L V6 (small ecoboost) that is showing up in the F150 range.


I wonder if there is a plan for a scale-able architecture to create a roughly 4.0L I6 Turbo gasoline engine in the future to bite into the SBC V8s?

I know that there is a 3.0L I6 duramax that is coming to the 1500 line family.


BMW has been doing 2.0 I4 with a close relation to 3.0 I6, and MB has plans to be switching over to I4 and I6 families for streamlined production on family lines and parts commonality.

I am wondering if this engine is a revamp of the 4 banger in the Saturn cars. The Saturn engine block was a skeleton like part, cast aluminum in the EPC(lost foam patterns) process. In a aluminum foundry in West Seattle, I ran the their lost foam production, which included casting this block and other smaller parts in the alloy we used(A356). This was done as a non contract test of our production abilities in our primary alloy. Much of the Saturn car's drive train components were AL or grey iron cast in this process.

I don’t know where some people get the idea that turbos are unsuitable for towing. They’ve existed on heavy diesels for over a half century, and diesels have a higher combustion temperature than gas engines. If they can be engineered to work for semi engines, why can’t they be engineered for gas applications?

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
Rather have a turbo-diesel 4...I don't understand why small diesels aren't more popular here? Way rather have that, for similar mileage, than a hybrid!

Supposedly they will offer a 3.0 liter duramax turbo diesel on these new 2019 1/2 ton trucks as well.

quote:

Originally posted by armedprof:
My biggest concern with turbo engines is longevity. If you wind that rubber band that tight every time you drive, how long will it last? Trucks are not like cars, people drive them into the ground over 10-20 years. Chevy could end up really shooting themselves in the foot when these engines start to fail after a short time.

Plenty of Ecoboosts with well over 200,000 miles.
Plenty of Turbo Diesels with 500,000 miles.
Proper maintenance is key.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by armedprof:
My biggest concern with turbo engines is longevity. If you wind that rubber band that tight every time you drive, how long will it last? Trucks are not like cars, people drive them into the ground over 10-20 years. Chevy could end up really shooting themselves in the foot when these engines start to fail after a short time.

Plenty of Ecoboosts with well over 200,000 miles.
Plenty of Turbo Diesels with 500,000 miles.
Proper maintenance is key.

As are proper oiling and cooling systems

To achieve these numbers, Chevrolet developed a dual-volute turbine. Unlike a twin-scroll turbocharged, a dual-volute system sends exhaust gas into the turbine through two separate inlets, coming off the exhaust manifold. Because the gasses aren't combined before going into the turbocharger, flow is smoother and boost pressure builds faster. An electronic boost controller keeps everything in check as the 2.7-liter builds up to 22 pounds per square inch of boost . The results are impressive. Chevrolet claims that the 2.7-liter turbo engine reaches 90 percent torque quicker than any other engine in the class. In layman's terms, turbo lag is virtually nonexistent. To reduce friction, the new engine uses a computer-controlled continuously variable oil pump. An offset crankshaft also is at play here .

These two items stood out at me the most.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

Originally posted by maladat:
I just went from a 2011 GMC Yukon XL Denali with a 6.2L V8 making 403 HP and 417 ft-lbs of torque to a new Lincoln Navigator L with a twin turbo 3.5L V6 making 450 HP and 510 ft-lbs of torque. No complaints. I even get significantly better mileage (went from super horrible to just horrible!).


I can imagine a change from a big V6 to a small turbocharged 4 being similarly unobjectionable.

I am loving my 2016 Expedition EL. It has 365hp and the thing scoots.
450hp and lighter I bet yours flies for the size of the rig.

We’re likely to get a 2nd Expedition next year. I’ll likely fool with some tuning and engine mods on the new one. 500hp to the wheels seems like a reasonable goal.
Does the Navigator require premium? I need to find out what is different with the motor if anything other than tuning.

I wouldn’t mind a 4 cylinder turbo in a single cab short bed.
But a crew cab loaded with people and gear just seems like it would struggle a bit.

It isn't exactly light on its feet, but the straight line acceleration is pretty impressive.

The user manual says the engine is fine with anything 87 octane or higher but will get better performance with higher octane fuel. The HP/torque numbers specifically state they are using 93 octane fuel.

I seldom encounter anything higher than 91 around here. And 86 is beginning to be more common than 87 for regular unleaded.

I find the subject to be extremely interesting but beyond me. My last Chevy was a 1994 4X4 with the V6 which had 247,000 and some odd miles and the current 2007 Chevy with a V6 has 115,000 and some odd miles. I drive less now. By the time I'm ready for another truck the track record for this new engine should be established thus I am not a Beta tester.

quote:

Originally posted by slabsides45:
Anyone else recall when they put that 4.3 in the S-10's? Those suckers ran like a scalded dog. I had a large time in one that had a stick shift back in the day....

I had a '93 S-10 blazer with that engine. It had some get up and go. I my only complaint with that engine is that I had to replace the fuel injector like 3 times.

This engine has practically the same amount of torque and hp as the V8 in my 2009 Dodge, that's impressive. I'm about sold on the idea of getting a new Ford with the eco boost V6 but I'm concerned about the long term durability and cost of repair and I'd be even more worried about this 4 cylinder. The fuel savings just isn't enough to justify the complexity in these engines. On the other hand this engine will probably satisfy the needs of most truck owners, myself included.

The upcoming GM trucks are ugly as sin, the other engines are carryover in terms power levels and now this. I've been a GM fan for a long time but my next truck is a Ford or a Tundra.