The twin-turbocharged Ford 2.7L V6 EcoBoost Nano powerplant has been around for a few years now, debuting in the 2015 Ford F-150 and seeing use in the Ford Edge and Lincoln Nautilus, among other vehicles, producing as much as 335 horsepower and 380 pound-feet of torque, depending on configuration. However, General Motors also introduced a revised version of its own 2.7L I-4 Turbo L3B powerplant in conjunction with the refreshed 2022 Chevy Silverado, which makes it more competitive in terms of output compared to the older version, which produced 310 horsepower and 348 pound-feet of torque.
|Engine Type||Turbo 2.7L I4||Twin-turbo 2.7L V6|
|Production code / Nickname||L3B||Nano|
|Vehicle Application||2022+ Silverado 1500 / 2022+ Sierra 1500||2021-2023 Ford F-150|
|Bore x Stroke (in / mm)||3.63 x 4.01 / 92.25 x 102||3.26 x 3.26 / 83.06 x 83.06|
|Block Material||Cast aluminum||Compacted graphite iron (CGI)|
|Cylinder Head Material||Aluminum||Aluminum|
|Valvetrain||DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, VVT||DOHC, 4 valves per cylinder, VVT|
|Fuel Delivery||Direct high-pressure injection with AFM||Port fuel and direct injection|
|Horsepower (hp / kw @ rpm)||310 / 231 @ 5,600||325 / 242 @ 5,500|
|Torque (lb-ft / Nm @ rpm)||430 / 571 @ 3,000||400 / 542 @ 3,000|
|Transmission||Hydra-Matic 8L90 8-speed automatic||SelectShift 10-Speed Automatic|
|Gear Ratios (:1):|
|Axle Ratio||3.42||3.15 / 3.55 / 3.73|
Though both the Ford 2.7L V6 EcoBoost and GM’s 2.7L I-4 turbo engines share the same displacement, the two powerplants are also quite different, aside from the additional two cylinders present in the Blue Oval version. GM’s single-turbo 2.7 features a cast aluminum block and heads, while the Ford twin-turbo 2.7 utilizes compacted graphite iron (CGI) and aluminum, respectively, and the former features direct high-pressure injection and the latter a dual setup of port and direct injection.
In terms of output, the GM 2.7L I-4 received quite a boost in the 2022 Silverado and Sierra – though horsepower remains unchanged at 310, torque shot up to 430 pound-feet. Meanwhile, the Ford 2.7 generates 325 horsepower and 400 pound-feet of torque in the F-150. In GM applications, this powerplant is mated to the Hydra-Matic 8L90 8-speed automatic transmission, while Ford pairs it with the SelectShift 10-speed automatic.
In addition to its use in the Silverado and Sierra, this particular tune of GM’s 2.7L I-4 will also serve as the top range variant in the recently-revealed 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2, while lesser variants will get the same powerplant, albeit in less powerful tunes.
We’ll have more comparisons like this to share soon, so be sure and subscribe to Ford Authority for comprehensive Ford news coverage.
When you step back, it’s quite amazing how far engine technology has come in the last 50 years. Lower displacement and fewer cylinders yet more HP. The only thing is that how will these smaller engines hold up over time? V8’s have proven themselves any number of times in reliability and durability. I think when comparing those two engines, FORD does have a slight advantage over GM. A six will always be slightly smoother but these new 4’s are much improved in smooth operation so that may prove a non issue over time.
Well the GM has 2 fewer cylinders to drop valves into like the Ford 2.7. But the larger displace the 4 gets the more there is a need for a balance shaft, and direct injection does result in somewhat better power, at least until the oil guzzling EGR system carbon fouls the vales tot he point that they no longer fully close(Port injection uses fuel additives to clean the valves for those not understanding yet). Ford could easily bump or just stay with the Ecoboost 2.3 with similar power though, at least until the 2 and 3 cylinders start filling with coolant (60-70k miles in some cases). The GM motor is too soon to tell if it will be anywhere near what the 2000 to 2009 non AFM/DOD LS based motors were as far as reliability. Also will be interesting to see if the IFS will hold out better than the Taco and Bronco the Colorado is trying to complete against.
I will always take a naturally asperated engine over a turbo. Turbo’s rely on the engine oil to cool them, as you you are forcing emissions back into the engine. This in turn burns the oil. More oil changes required. Also in a turbo you have spooling, which gives you dead spots when driving. Naturally asperated engines do burn more gas but are smooth and true readouts of horsepower. Main reason after research that I purchased a Nissan Frontier over a Colorado, or Ranger. The standard engine on the Nissan is a naturally asperated V6, 3.8 310 horsepower. The Chevy and Ford are both 4 banger, Turbo’s.
turbo charging does not “force emissions back into the engine”. There are 2 parts to the turbo, the exhaust side and the intake side. There are 2 turbines connected by 1 shaft. The force of the exhaust spins the turbine in the exhaust side, which turns the shaft and also spins the turbine in the intake side. The intake turbine sucks in clean air from the intake. Exhaust emissions do not go back into the engine. FYI………….
Engine oil in a naturally aspirated engine and a boosted engine are the same, one does not “burn more oil”. If your engine is burning oil, that means your piston rings are damaged, and engine oil is leaking into the combustion chamber. Oil change frequency is exactly the same. Only difference is with turbo charged engines you need synthetic oil, but if you’re driving a high performing naturally aspirated engine you are probably using synthetic engine oil as well.
The only main difference is with NA engines you can use 87 octane regular fuel and with boosted engines you need premium fuel to avoid engine knock or premature ignition in the pistons. Also NA engines have their power in the higher RPM’s, while boosted engines have their power in the lower RPM’s and loses power in higher RPM’s. NA engines generally have more horsepower than boosted engines, and boosted engines have more torque than NA engines. One main benefit of a boosted engine is if you live in higher elevations with lower density air (Colorado for example), you lose power with NA engines, but with a turbo you can force air into the engine and lose less power.
You had everything right, except 2 things, all engines produce more power at high rpms, that’s because at high rpms you have more power strokes per second, more fuel being burned = more power, you’re probably thinking of top end vs bottom end power (where horses=top speed, and torque=acceleration) the 2nd thing is a boosted 1.4 liter engine, will have more power and torque than a N.A. 2.4 liter, while one has more displacement, the boosted one makes up for that by having a denser air charge, this causes a more powerful combustion,
Yea true. I was just thinking in terms of GM’s 2.0L turbo LTG engine. All of the power is from 2.5k to 5.5k rpm, but the red line is at 6.5k rpm. For example if you try to run a 0-60mph test in a manual 6 speed where you shift right before redline compared to an automatic that shifts exactly at 5.5k rpm, the automatic will pull a faster 0-60 time.
To your second point, I agree. What I was referring to was generally when a company offers a 4cyl turbo and a V6 NA option for the same car, generally the boosted engine will have lower horsepower but higher torque when compared its NA counterpart. If you’re running a 1/4 mile the horsepower will help you get a faster 1/4 mile time and top speed, but for short accelerations and the power to move heavy weight loads the torque will be more beneficial than horsepower.
it did not use to be that way, for a long time turbo engines had lag due to turbo size and fuel management. as well as lack of control of timing. in those days the turbo vehicle were often much higher HP in the higher RPM’s with not torque to speak of down low. an automatic 2000’s STI vs the manual version showed the benefits of getting the engine into the RPM’S before launch. That was all about lack of torque converter control versus the ability to Drop the clutch at a good RPM.
that 2.7L I-4 GM uses is a beast. I really want a Cadillac CT4-V with that 2.7L turbo in it.
It would be more tempting if it didn’t have the 8 speed tranny in this truck. Once there is a class action suit filed, GM should use something else. I’m guessing they would be forced to, without the supply chain problems.
yea the GM 8L45 8 speed auto trans had some issues. I have it in my Camaro, it makes a jerking motion going from 2nd to 3rd in low RPMs when it’s cold but only when the car first starts up. But I heard they fixed a lot of the issues with the new 8L90 8 speed which is in the Colorado and newer cars.
They devised a new fluid for it, and the results are a good, sturdy, virtually trouble-free transmission.
Good to know. Besides the aggressive shifts and shudder once in a while, it’s a good transmission. I’ve heard the 10 speed auto that GM and Ford both use (or developed together) used on Mustangs and Camaros are really good. But it would be nice to have a lower costing 8 speed for more economical cars, as you will probably never use all 10 gears in city driving. And 6 speed autos are just not good anymore in today’s standards.
The fluid fix is mixed reviews on the GM pages. Some say it fixed it and others say slight improvement to only temp improvement. GMs claim is they should need to warranty them for hard shifts up and down and shudders is because warranties are for defects in materials and workmanship and the problem is a design flaw
I’m not too crazy about how GM is utilizing the AFM on this engine; as a matter of fact I’m not crazy about cylinder deactivation altogether. So I’ll take the Ford I guess.
I’d be interested in knowing what kind of power these engines produce without being boosted.
What would impress me more is seeing someone haul something other than groceries in these oversized codpieces.
would it make you feel less concerned if they actually drove it off road? Because some do.
I’m totally satisfied with my 2.7 Ford Turbo engine! I have it in a 2021 F150. It’s averaging 21.7 mpg. It’s also rather quick! So far, no problems noted! I have had other brands,…but this Ford is great!!
What happen to the days ten years ago or so that all the Chevy guys were singing the song about the boosted v6 f150 being a distressed v6. Guess ford had it right all along 😏.
They all seem to be moving that way. To reduce costs it makes sense to build off of as few engine platforms as possible and practical. GM and CHRYSLER want to move to turbo straight 6 and 4 cylinder engines in trucks and some cars. It’s easy to chop off 2 cylinders off of a straight 6 and have a 4. Years ago, chopping off 2 cylinders from the V8 to create a V6 made sense too. I’m sure the TUNDRA fans don’t like the idea of putting the turbo 3.5 V6 in place of the proven 5.7 V8 but while it’s sad, V8’s are becoming less and less even in trucks. I’m not a sports car fan but who knows how much longer CORVETTE will have the V8 as standard equipment and will the stalwarts accept any other engine type in that iconic car? Who knows how many years the 7.3L FORD truck engine will be around given the way technology continues to change but not always for the better.
Not really Ford essentially put a car engine in a truck while GM did it right for once and built the 4 banger like a diesel. Look at both cutaways you will see what I mean.
Ford far from put a car engine in a truck! It’s just so solidly built w/ its graphite iron block an true V6 setup that its more then sturdy w/minor tweaks to do truck duty just fine.. which it has most successfully since 2015. Its on Gen2 now w/both port & direct inj along w/ other durability improvements. Far more sophisticated & stronger then GMs 2.7 4cyl though i do not in any way think the GM engine isn’t good. In fact it is. The HP & TQ #s from both are astonishing! I wouldn’t hesitate at all to own either. I prefer Fords direction though & have a Gen2 2.7L V6 TGDI in my ’22 F150. Love it.