In your case a smaller truck would be more than sufficient, a Colorado would do all that easily. It’s been rumored that the 2.7 turbo 4 will end up in the Colorado, I can imagine that engine will feel like a rocket in a smaller truck.

I agree! At this rate we might see 3 cylinders pushing 250+ hp/tq regularly.

Haha that's a good point! 😆

As the video stated the 5.3L felt sluggish and he incorrectly attributed this to the transmission. Reality is it's the torque RPM of the 5.3l vs the 2.7T. 5.3L torque peak is 383torque@4000rpm. 2.7T has 350 torque by 1500rpm and peaks at 430torque@3000rpm. To do actual work with a 5.3L, it will be turning much higher rpm regularly. So in that sense it will be working just as hard if not harder to do the same work as the 2.7T. Don't forget the 2.7T get 3mpg better average than the 5.3L, the 5.3L also being a $2000 option so you spend more to get that engine. I prefer the extra 75 miles range per tank and also still having the ability to tow the same load as a v8.

I did not attribute the 5.3 being sluggish due directly due to the transmission. I praised the 10 speed several times. The throttle sensitivity was my biggest complaint with the 5.3 truck. The truck felt like it should have downshifted upon less throttle or just given more throttle (with less pedal travel) in the current gear. Also the 5.3 costs $3,095 more than the 2.7 in most (if not all) configurations.

@@CarsMadeSimple the 5.3l is a $2000 option in work truck trim. I guess i incorrectly assumed gm wasn't going to charge more in other trims. Is the difference in price US vs Canadian dollars?

@@troyg3439 I just doubled checked and the price difference applies to W/T trims also. It actually may have gone up since I made this video as the difference came out to be $3,490 for the W/T Crew Cab I built. The difference comes from about $2,000 in extra cost for the 5.3 and GM gives you a $1,500 "package discount" on the back end which totals over $3,000 savings. You can build them on the website and see what I am referring to.

4cyl make their torque and hp in the top end using a 4cyl like that it won’t last long

You're welcome! I am glad it was helpful.

That truck is certainly a head turner. If you are adding to a fleet, the 2.7 might be a good choice to try something new. It's got plenty of power, that's for sure.

Stick with the V8. You’ll be much happier. Personally I won’t own another turbo 4 or 6 cylinder.

I prefer the 5.3 litre cubic inch V8 over the 2.7 litre Turbo 4 cylinder, I miss the large V6 motor.

How did it pull the boat

@@johnmorgan6577 Pulls my 20 foot Ranger bass boat the same or maybe a little better than my last truck with the 5.3. I towed a 21 foot Triton boat here in Florida. You could feel the extra weight on takeoff but it still towed great. My buddy didn't believe it has a 4 cylinder until he saw it.

Under the big sky myself

I agree let's put it on the floor up a grade for a few miles than we shall see

Flat ground is very important for us Floridians 😅

@@cjnicholl8559 I'll bet it is😂

That’s what I was thinking as well but all these KZfaqrs all they do if flat towing. I believe that the 5.3 will hold better than a 2.7 going uphill anyday .

Wow! That's great to hear the engine was reliable over 150k miles. The Transmission was also what I believed to be the weakest part of the setup. Did you switch to the 5.3 because of the transmission?

@@CarsMadeSimple the 10 speed was the main reason but I also missed those 8 cylinders lol

@@CarsMadeSimple in all honesty, the 2.7 has impressive performance, slightly better mpg, and cost less. However, the 5.3 is just so reliable and that is very comforting when purchasing a truck these days. Not to mention how much I love listening to it over the 2.7. I know it’s not important to some people but I’m a gear head and I enjoy every second of it

@@phillipcotten4872 That's totally fair! Everyone has personal preferences. It nice that you actually lived with a truck for years to gain experience rather than write off the 2.7 just because it doesn't sound appealing.

Glad to see a long term review of 150k with the 2.7. I was wondering how big of a hit did you take selling or trading it compared to a V8 of similar trim level and mileage?

How’s the reliability been so far?, I’m in the market for the new rcsb 2.7.

@700chavo well as far as the engine and the important parts, the truck is amazing. At this point I can care less it's the 2.7 liter it works great. But the inside is of course still a chevy for instance I shop vacuumed off a little piece of chrome plastic from the air-conditioner vents. Like gone haha.

@@700chavo Don't buy the 8 which would be a monster if they got rid of that transmission. A five speed would be perfect.

@@700chavo 30k on my gmc elevation It’s been perfect. 21-27 around town 22 hwy from WI to FL

Midsize definitely can work for families but typically I would say those fit families best with up to one child. They can run out of space fairly quick with more than that. I am glad you are enjoying your Silverado 2.7 so far! That seems to be better MPG than I have been able to achieve.

Very true. Aerodynamics do play a big part in towing.

Unfortunately the 6.2L is a lifter/pushrod disaster just waiting to happen.

@@g.k.1669 To about one percent of the engines out there.

@@g.k.1669 plus it require premium gas so that makes it a hard no

@@AlaskaErik Too much of a risk to take. My 5.3 is still working good at 106K in my Silverado however, I am having a Billet torque converter installed next week due to the number of failures that are occurring in the transmissions over 100K. I figure that it is better to pay $900 for the work and parts plus some fluid and trans filter replacement now instead of having it detonate on the freeway and pay $4K later.

The estimated MPG on the trucks computer was 15.4 MPG for the 2.7 and 15.8 MPG for the 5.3. The 5.3 had over 6,000 miles while the 2.7 had 550 miles or so. While towing on the short loop, they were both between 10-11 MPG according to the computer.

@@CarsMadeSimple I think that 2.7 would have gotten better mileage with the stock smaller rims. Plus it would have pulled even harder. Big rims rob power and fuel. Probably would have rode better too on stock. What was stock, 17"? Is it true 2022 and newer 5.3 don't have the cylinder deactivation? I've read that it's really not fool proof to delete it using a scan tool. Plus, I think GM can access live connect can't they and turn it back to stock on a whim. The days of simple and honest are all a distant memory now unfortunately. I know not everyone discovers this yet though. I have a feeling that 8 speed is purposely made to exploit the very high torque that 2.7 has at 1500+ revs. Doesn't make it a good tranny tho. You'd think it wouldn't have shifted so poorly. Personally I'd even prefer a 6 or 7 speed on turbos, as long as they're a good trans. Is the 10 sp the same unit Ford uses too I've heard? I meant to say..if driven gently, I'll bet the 2.7 would easily beat whatever the EPA says, city or highway. The problem though is it's hard not to use the power and torque if it's there begging to be urged, and all turbos have huge fuel lines and pumping capacity with any heavy foot. Someone mentioned towing a travel trailer with high wind resistance would be a better test. And that's true, especially if driven over 55 very often. There's a guy that tows a 32 or 35' travel trailer and he gets amazing mileage but I think he keeps it under 60. Says he always launches gently. If he's heavy on the throttle says the economy can disappear but treat it decent and rewards much better than previous V8.

The 2023 Colorado is suppose to have the Gen 2 8 speed. The main complaint I had about the Silverado was the downshift from 2-1 under certain conditions.

The new Colorado is right around the corner, it might be worth waiting a few months until you can look at both in person. As you know the Silverado is a good step up in size.

I pull my 5,000 lbs wolf pup with my Colorado V6. It does fine, but I would like something a little heavier but the engine is solid.

It's a valid question but given the age of the engine, only time will tell.

Awesome to hear! I enjoyed the power as well.

Sounds like a nice Rig

Buddy has the 2.7, pulls 7400lbs around alot. Up hills down and flat. Over 80k miles and just regular maintenance. Most of the miles on the truck is pulling that 7400lbs. Its a strong tough engine for sure. He loves it.

I agree! I own a refreshed 22 with the 2.7. I love this truck!!

@@dmac4137I got one yesterday love it

Experience is one of the best methods of changing an opinion.

It’s got some pep, however it’s an oil burner. Lol got rid of mine

@@joshtaylor1416 mine is at 30k no oil burn 2023 430 lb of torque

@@brettb2701 I doubt that

@@joshtaylor1416 why?

Thanks! They both had the standard option for their trims levels in terms of suspension so that is why I assumed they would be pretty close but it could be different. I agree that the 3.42 is the better of the two for towing and moving up to the 3.73 would likely help even more. That's good that your feels more responsive. It could have some sort of adaptive learning too which made it less responsive based on the past 6,000 miles of driving.

"That LTZ is has a 3.23… hehe not designed for towing." Not true. The 10 speed transmission makes up for the difference...nicely!

3.42 not 3.43

I don't off road either but I still got z71 4x4 because Wisconsin does have snowy winter's

I thought the pedal tuning was very good as a whole. Peak torque comes in right around 3,000 RPM which is just under the middle of the rev band. I thought it did a decent job keeping it in this area.

@@CarsMadeSimple ohh, it's matter of preference then. I took delivery of the truck today. I don't know why but this one is less prone to downshift than the one i test drove a month ago. But i like when it revs low. I rarely let it rev to 2500rpm. I'm not sure of the claimed 430lbs/ft of torque on regular fuel tho. It pulls hard when you let the boost come, but not that hard if i refer to my butt dyno. 13.5L/100 of city driving today, seems pretty good for such a large thing.

That was a very solid engine.

Had a 4.3 vortex blazer 98 and u could not kill it. I jumped it off a 8 foot cliff at a construction site in high school n it took it like a champ raised he'll everywhere I went..only hiccup was the transmission which me n my auto teacher stuck a Richmond racing rear end in

Did you have any problems with either of your 5.3's? I've had older ones and looking at getting a new one but the Internet has been pretty hard on them with issues the last few years.

@@curtis1951 my 2020 misfired a couple of times. Dealership did an update and it was fine afterwards. My 2022 was totally fine. Full disclosure, I didn't have either of them very long so I might not be the best to provide feedback on longevity!

@@salamancadingding Thanks.

Wound up in a nissan titan 😂

I put a down payment to order a nice Silverado trailboss. When I couldn’t sleep at night spending that much on a new truck I ended up with a titan and absolutely LOVE it.

Yes I have an entire playlist with videos from this truck. As for MPG during the towing test, both trucks were very similar at around 10-11 MPG according to the computer.

I have a 2022 Crew Cab with 2.7L, 4x4, and all weather tires... ~1k miles. The fuel mileage varies a lot based on conditions, obviously, but overall it's great: - 30 mile commute in hills and a +1000ft grade climbs, I average 22-24mpg at 70-75mph. - On country roads with few stop signs I average 24-26mpg at 55mph - Short city drives vary based on how hot the engine gets. A short 2-3 miler is about 10-14mpg, a 5+miler is between 16-21mpg. I will say I am not heavy footed though... Only when I get the itch on occasion, haha.

It would be nice to have another option with the 2.7 engine.

No half ton should be towing over 7k lbs regularly. It’s just too much stress over time especially if you’re towing in the mountains. That’s where a diesel comes into view where it makes its maximum torque at less than 2k rpm. You can tow heavy and the engine isn’t working nearly as hard as gas engines.

I agree. It will take time to for everyone to get used to this base engine option that just so happens to have more torque than the 5.3. Despite the downfalls, I still believe it is a great upgrade (or base engine) over the 4.3 which was just a little low on power and didn't get great fuel economy either. Hopefully the revised 8 speed goes into the Silverado after the Colorado/Canyon as it can use all the help it can get.

@@CarsMadeSimple Hopefully they resolve the issues with the 8 speed. My dad drives a 19 Silverado with the 5.3 and 8 speed. The transmission has been troublesome since day 1. Hard shifting and or delayed shifting seem to be the norm. It was checked out by the dealer that he bought the truck from. They say, it's operating normally and refused to even do the fluid flush that seems to have helped some people. With the price of trucks these days, quite a shame that manufacturers don't address these issue.

@@joeraptor1 I took mine in a few weeks ago with some of the common complaints and they said with it having just over 50k miles and since GM recommends trans flush every 50k miles, thats what they did. It did may a noticeable difference right away. We’ll see how long before symptoms come back.

Yeah id pick the 7.3 godzilla

@@donfraz90 We asked the dealer to do the flush but they wouldn't cover it under warranty. They wanted $1000 (Canadian) for it. There seems to be some significant issues with that 8 speed but GM is not acknowledging it nor accepting responsibility.

Unfortunately the Midwest doesn't have large grades to test on like in the mountainous areas. The one decent hill we did drive up, both trucks did fine.

Thanks! Yes, I agree.

I tow a travel trailer at about 8k pounds and 33 feet long, drag def makes a difference but the 2.7 has no problem towing it. We made several trips from north of Syracuse New York to Virginia, and the hills on 81 weren’t an issue. Gas mileage is under 8mpg though, but tows much better than the 5.3. Hopefully they put the 10 speed with it.

Yes! I was performing the Navigation update so I had some free time while it was updating. 😄

At least you were able to get exactly what you wanted.

@@CarsMadeSimple yeah, my truck gets manufactured this week. It'll be another month before it's here. I believe it will be worth the wait.

Very true! MPG according to the computer was only different by around 2-3 MPG for the short loop.

They weren't smart enough to implement that.

Nice…. But they do have Timing Belt engine not chain

I highly recommend the 3.0 Duramax. My 2022 GMC Crew Cab 4x4 with one gets 32+ mpg on the highway driving 70 with cruise control.

We have many 2.7 Customs and one W/T trim in stock (Along with a couple 2022 and 2023 3.0 Duramax's) if you are interested!

Just a disclaimer, the 2.7 has a negligible impact on fuel economy compared to the 5.3, those things suck down fuel pretty good

It was extremely similar between the two according to the computer. They were both around 11-12 MPG over the 21 mile loop. This included the hard acceleration and a decent hill climb among the other driving.

I have a 2022 Silverado 1500 LT 2.7L turbo and I average 12 mpg with it while towing my 7500 lb. and 30-foot-long Rockwood travel trailer. I usually run between 60-65 mph with it and don't drive it hard. It has plenty of towing power and I love this truck.

3500lb boat some hills 12.5 mpg with a 2023 gmc 2.7T elevation

Thanks for the comment. I was referring to smaller trailers such as single axle's and smaller double axle travel trailers up to around 24' or so. Looking online it looks like these trailers vary a lot but many are well under 7,000 lbs wet.

@@CarsMadeSimple yes, I caught that, but even at 24’ you may be bumping up against max carrying capacity. My rule of thumb as well as many seasoned rv trailer people is to come in at around 80% of capacity. In a majority of time with rv’s you’ll hit max weight carrying cap way before max towing. A flatbed trailer with sand or water will have a much lower profile and most likely not have the same issue’s. Travel trailers also have a lot of real estate up in the air and will find a lot of wind resistance. Side winds will create other issues as well.. although a lot do it 1/2t trucks should limit towing of rv’s to the very small size. Do your test now with a tt or the water tank with a 3/4t or 1t and you’ll see what I mean. Day & night difference. Plain old physics.

From my understanding you should not exceed 15% tongue weight for conventional towing. Going over by a little might be acceptable but even if you say 15% of 7,000 lbs that would be 1,050 lbs. That leaves 882 lbs of payload possible within the truck. This is a comfortable margin for a few people and stuff. If you are able to back off the tongue weight a little this would add capacity. Just looking online, many 20-24' double axle trailers are actually closer to 5,500 - 6,000 lbs wet. I think a 1/2 ton truck should handle this easily even with added wind resistance if you are balancing your tongue weight correctly.

Good points

I have had 2 - 2.7s and I currently have a 5.3. The fuel mileage drops a lot lower on the 2.7 when towing. The fuel mileage on the 2023 5.3 is about 3 to 5 miles per gallon better than my 2.7s at 75 miles per hour when not towing. The 2.7 feels a little better at towing during take off up to 40mph and the 5.3 feels and sounds better during Highway speeds especially up hills.

@@TexarkanaPrepper thanks for that man. Atleast i have an idea what to buy that would suit my needs.

GM calls that design the "22" BRIGHT CHROME MULTI-SPOKE WHEELS"

Very sharp indeed! It's gets compliments all the time.

@@CarsMadeSimple kinda wish you’d put the 6.2 in just for fun… maybe another video? And also. Could you tell me what rims are on that LTZ. Most of them I look at have plain ole uglier rims on….I like the rims on this truck

2.7T is built based on the duramax diesel so upper 100’s to 200’s I’d worry about the 8spd torque converter

Both were around 11-12 MPG for this short loop according to the computer.

@@CarsMadeSimple ok thanks.

Thanks for sharing!

The computer will control what it thinks is ideal for current throttle input. It is likely true during hard acceleration revving the engine out is slightly better than shifting early in most cases. I agree that in most cases you'll be below redline in the 2.7.

It should be very good!

Noted!

Yes

I would like to drive that engine a little more to see how it compares. From my little experience and all the reviews online, it seems like a well rounded option.

Belt driven oil pump. You can’t escape the dumbfuckery of modern engineering.

It landed around 11-12 in each truck according to the computer.

lol dude you got some good miles out of that engine. Where you expecting 500k?

They both said 10-11 MPG according to the trucks on board computer.

You don't have to wait JJ, The 2.7 liter 4 cylinder High Output Turbo will out tow and is one of only two engines that GM hasn't been able to break! that's right, GM can't break the 2.7 liter turbo and neither could you.

There is no turbo to “Replace” they built it much like the turbo diesel engine already in their line which has a great reputation durability-wise. The turbo is integrated as part of the engine. These 2.7s are gonna be a great option for anyone looking to save a few grand off msrp and gas. It’s gonna be a solid truck for many years to come.

No spell check on your computer?

24-27 city 21-22 hwy

That is true

This is a different 5.3L. It actually makes some decent power compared to the old boat anchors from 20 years ago.

Having owned 3 modern GM cars with small displacement 4 cylinder turbos, each driven over 100k miles I can say keep your dinosaur engine. The 2.7T will out tow the 5.3L based on a more usable torque RPM and higher torque output.

@@troyg3439 You could keep your civic sounding full size pickup snowflake. The 5.3 V8 will outlast any crappy turbo 4 cylinder engine. I will never buy a shitty 4 cylinder turbo full size truck.

I love the sound of a V-8 engine. That aside, with the fuel management systems GM has on bothe the 5.3 and 6 2 engines, their reliability has been called into question. There are bullet-proofing aftermarket kits to remove the AFM system to keep all 8 cylinders pumping, which should greatly extend the life and reliability of these two engines. On another note, GM's 2.7 4cyl turbo is a very capable option. When maticuously maintained and not abused, they do last as long as non turbos. Look at Ford's Ecoboost engines, there are many near or past 200K miles. I am not the biggest fan of the sound, but I will give credit to all these forced-air 4 and 6 cyl engines on the market today. Like it or not, they are the future for ICE vehicles.

Turbo's and head gaskets. Don't see it lasting 300k like the 5.3. Who's knows? It will sound like a turd wagon when it has an exhaust leak.

I really like the performance and feel of the 2.7 also! The only drawback I can see right now is the MPG not being ideal (at least from my experience). I can't wait to drive the Colorado to see if the 8 speed is improved along with any better MPG ratings.