Is America ready for 4-cylinder full-size pickup trucks? Because they're here (GM)

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by roosterk0031

Don't think any ecoboost are FFV

It does surprise me that most FFVs still rely on natural aspiration and port injection, while direct injection is clearly better to allow easier cold starts and the usage of a higher compression ratio without too many compromises to the fuel-efficiency while running on gasoline.

[MetroMPG]

EPA ratings for GM's 4-banger truck are out, and the folks in the marketing department have their work cut out for them:

The MPG rating for a 2WD 2.7-liter Chevrolet Silverado is 20 city/23 mpg highway/21 combined. As we told you this morning, the V6 offerings at Ford and Ram beat the GM four-banger by a hair.

https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...gine-stack-up/

[MetroMPG]

Ha! Marketing has decided it's better to just run away from any talk of cylinder count:

What’s interesting is that GM chooses to largely refer to this engine as a 2.7 Turbo, scarcely mentioning the words four-cylinder. In fact, that phrase appears nowhere in today’s press release about fuel economy

[redpoint5]

I get the impression that turbo charging a smaller engine is no longer the fuel efficient way. Perhaps due to the lower compression ratio?

[19bonestock88]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

EPA ratings for GM's 4-banger truck are out, and the folks in the marketing department have their work cut out for them:


https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...gine-stack-up/

I read an article on Jalopnik that suggested that due to its lower than anticipated mileage it wouldn’t last in the Silverado, but could excel in the Colorado with less weight and size...

Given how badly they missed the mark I wonder if they couldn’t have done a BAS hybrid system on the 4.3 and kept it as base engine... it already got better mileage than the four cylinder does now...

Of course the four cyl is only available at the LT trim level, maybe it isn’t available without 4WD?

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I get the impression that turbo charging a smaller engine is no longer the fuel efficient way. Perhaps due to the lower compression ratio?

Small (0.9 L to 1.2 L) blown engines are the new craze in Europe
Appearing in surprisingly large chariots

It's OK on the test bank
Not so much in real life driving ...

[BdK9001]

Totally agree with Euromodder there. Have driven a few of them over the last few years, but most of them are only fun while staying before the torque drop-off RPM. Above that they're basically gutless. Best example is Peugeot 107 vs Peugeot 108, in low rev's - and especially city driving - the 108's turbo makes it very fun and economic to drive, but as soon as you get to highway speeds (75-80 MPH) it's fuel economy plummets and with a fair bit of headwind it can't even maintain 80MPH in 5th... The 107 has way less torque, but a much more usefull powercurve for highway driving. Same goes for the Peugeot 208 with the 1.2 turbo, off the line it's quite quick, but as soon as you get out of the max-torque area it feels quite scary during overtaking (due to lack of top end HP).

Talking about chariots: I'm off to my horseriding lessons

[MetroMPG]

^ How many furlongs per bushel are you getting?

[19bonestock88]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Small (0.9 L to 1.2 L) blown engines are the new craze in Europe
Appearing in surprisingly large chariots

It's OK on the test bank
Not so much in real life driving ...

The issue with these tiny engines, is that if they’re moving a fairly large car they’re almost always in boost and not very efficient, especially at highway speed where the biggest load is aero...

That’s not to say that a skilled hypermiler can’t get some phenomenal numbers from these cars, but the masses of people driving these cars aren’t hypermilers...

My ex got 28mpg hwy with her 2011 1.4T Cruze while my 2004 Saturn with its 2.2 liter engine got 30-32hwy when stock, at a similar speed

[niky]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

I get the impression that turbo charging a smaller engine is no longer the fuel efficient way. Perhaps due to the lower compression ratio?

New turbo engines have relatively high compression. Plus direct injection, which theoretically gets you much better idling efficiency.

-

I think the real problem is heat and load. A small turbocharged engine, when at idle or cruising below boost threshold in relatively mild operating conditions, will get economy similar to (but not as good as) a non-turbo engine of the same size.

Add heat soak and load and etcetera, and that goes away. I've been able to get better numbers out of Ford's turbo four in the Explorer than the V6, but only by really trying. Drive both the same way and the difference is undetectable.

Most economy tests feature milder drive cycles than the real world, so on something like the NEDC, downsized turbos can slip through.

I think the EPA test is more realistic. And more difficult. Which is why the Chevy 2.7 isn't getting great numbers.