this is what happens when GM tries to make an Ecoboost without using too much copy paste.. 1 They fail.. 2 They continue gimmick "features" that don't actually do anything.
I was out enjoying my bike today. Only 50hp (still faster than most cars) and no seat belts, airbags, bumpers, antilock brakes, accident avoidance, or safety systems. I'm totally surprised they let motorcycles on the road these days. I'm loving it more.
Hey men are women and women are men or both or neither or not or maybe or maybe not or could be but aren't. I even read about a transgender man or is it woman who identifies as a deer or is it a doe? I so confused. What was the question or was it the answer?
You might have trouble getting the exhaust pulses to match up with the volutes since the firing order jumps from side to side. I still like the idea. Put the motor into an old Vega or Monza.
What I heard was “GM was able to produce a part-time 2 cylinder engine that is able to consume more fuel than a V8, it’s completely pointless. But it’s got a cool turbo!” Did I get that right?
Keep in mind a significant percentage of people buy pickup trucks and never tow anything or tow things that are very light like a jet ski. The four cylinder pickup is perfect for those type of people. But honestly so is the simple naturally aspirated v6 which is probably the smart choice. He didn't mention what the city mileage is I'd be curious to see if perhaps that's where the great improvement is. If not then one really has to question what the hell was the point.
I think you'll find the aero and rolling drag co-efficients of a Dodge Viper is a bit better than a Chevy Silverado - and by a bit I mean incomparable. Now, compare the actual Dodge trucks that had the Dodge V10, and the average was about 10mpg.
@@acammer The dodge viper acr had a lot of wind resistance. The wing on the back is huge. There has never been a dodge truck with an 8.4l V10. There were a few with an 8.0l and an 8.3l, but never the 8.4l. My comment is a joke anyways. It's not meant to be 100% serious. It is a fact that this 4 cylinder gets similar fuel economy to a dodge viper though.
@@gasolinediesel972 I hear you on the joking, just firing back a bit. It's an interesting engine, but it does seem like a lot to go wrong. My truck is a dinosaur all mechanical 12 valve - just the way I like it.
@@gasolinediesel972 What Dodge truck had a V10? The massive 8.0 Magnum V10 was available in the 1994 to 2003 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 models. Its 310hp and 450tq made it the most powerful gasoline engine available in a passenger pickup truck. ... Dodge Ram 8.0 V10 Specs. Engine Dodge 8.0 Magnum V10 Torque 450 lb-ft @ 2,400 RPM you are correct sir
But its true. V8s do get better economy. It takes a 4 cylinder 2x the rpm to get the car to move and to accelerate it takes more time meaning 0-60 takes longer burning more gas. Less torque means more rpm needed to move. V8 have lpts of torque it requires very little rpm to get it to move.
Did u know that a v8 motor only weighs 40 pound more then a 4 cylinder nd puts out twice the horsepower and torque. A chevy ls3 weighs about 450 lbs with oil and coolant in it. Its like having 1 horsepower per pound. 4 cylinders will cost u 2 pounds per 1 horsepower
@@jackdaniels2657 you do realize that the four cylinder has more horsepower and torque than the v8 also your RPM explanation is completely false... V8s have much more rotating mass and cranking losses
@@jackdaniels2657 dude I don't know what 4 cylinder you're comparing this to but there's four cylinders that weigh less than 300 pounds and most ls are 5-550 all set
Cadillac: we have brand new 4 cylinder which is less efficient than V8 in the next episode of the year 2020 show, Tesla: we have brand new bigger batteries which have less range
@@FXIIBeaver I don't have one. I'm merely a mechanic. I remember an article from a while back of electronics eliminating the cam shaft, but as far as specifics I don't have any.
@@Jimaybob nope he's right, so it's all about fuel mileage in the end because lesser fuel lesser emissions, right? So the engine is lighter and uses less material which is good but fuel mileage is worse than the 5.3 and probably it won't last as long as the 5.3, in the end I can't see a real advantage.
@@Jimaybob it wont work in the real world. Any of the mpgs for example aren't achievable by average Joe in the real world. It's a scam. I'll keep my 1jz gte sure its not the most fuel efficient but it will be more reliable than pretty much any modern engine
@@chappy2121 I agree. Is giving up 5 MPGs worth significant reliability reduction? From an owner perspective, I think most people say hell no. I think from an environmental perspective the carbon footprint of producing additional motors/cars would offset that mild MPG difference as well. All the regulations are about right here right now, and none have any consideration for long term impacts.
My biggest issues were the check valves on the 2.4 eco tech’s always had weird oil pressure issues with the 2 I had because of failing check valves that controlled the oil flow to the camshaft solenoids.
Silverado engineer: I have a great idea for a new fuel efficient truck engine. Everyone is going to love it! Truck buyer: I'm not paying extra for a smaller engine with worse fuel economy! Silverado engineer: No one is buying this engine. Now what are we going to do with it? Cadillac engineer: Hold my beer!
Funny enough Chevy didnt list a 4-cyl for their Silverado. (It may have changed by now) They listed a 5.3 V8, a 4.3 V6, and a 2.7. Not a 2.7 L4, just a 2.7. Funny, that
You know, I’ve always wanted to know I’d the Cadillac CT-4 competed with the BMW 2 Series or 3 Series. Glad to know it’s competing with GMC Sierra, Ford F-150, RAM 1500, Toyota Tundra, and so on. 😆
Hahaha, if you can't beat them, change who your competition is! "CT4-V has more payload, more towing capacity, more range, than all Smart EVs!" Sir, this is a Target check-out line.
I've been a mechanic all my life and retired now. I got to work on 60s through 2000s cars and trucks. I loved seeing the evolution to what we have now. This valve control system is remarkable but cam less engines are here, but not yet in production cars.
For how neglectful and just useless most people are for ANYTHING to do with their vehicles, sure. For somebody who wants a reliable driver they can fix? yeah no.
@@baileyhatfield4273what? Camless valve trains are much easier to service and repair, you just change the broken solenoid! And no more catastrophic engine failures because valves aren’t physically able to fall into the combustion chamber anymore. Unfortunately the forced use of electric vehicles by governments worldwide means that this amazing technology was never implemented to the mass market and will never happen again since it’s forbidden from 2030 on to bring cars with a internal combustion engine to the mass market. I won’t mention the catastrophic events this will trigger because it’s just too depressing. Just remember that free valve systems are incredibly reliable and powerful! The only negative is a higher price in the first generations, but that would vanish in a normal production cycle without political intervention..
A Cadillac sedan is a truck, a Mercedes genuine SUV is a coupe and if you want the best fuel economy on the highway get the V8. "We have just lost cabin pressure"
Just attach the ship piston to the back of the car, insert car and piston in the cylinder, and fire it once. Outstanding mpg, I'd love to see how far it would go
Volute can be found on a centrifugal pump. Like a compressor what makes the snail shape and allows for different speeds to accomodote flow/pressure curve
when u suck at being a mechanic, you cant fix simple things like northstar engines, replace the head stud for bigger studs and the northstar will run forever unlike every other 32v american v8
@@NoName-gv6nm It's an inline 4 cylinder. They had a turbo version of it as well in the 968. Early versions of it made around 200 hp where the later one found in the 968 made around 240 hp. Even though it was large the horsepower numbers are still pretty impressive for the time. The turbo version had an 8 valve head instead of the 16 valve on the NA version. It also made, I think, 300 hp and almost 400 ft lbs of torque. Might have been closer to 350 or 360 ft lbs. Still a lot of torque from a production 4 banger. If the HP was lower, it would just sound like 4 cylinder Diesel numbers of today.
A 4 cylinder engine in a truck? Apparently yes, it's a thing. But hey, it's got 310 horsepower and tons of torque, amirite? But the sad truth is most people driving pickup trucks aren't hauling anything other than super light stuff. And they don't go off roading (no, dirt roads don't count, and parking on the grass doesn't count either). So most people really should be driving the 4 cylinder Silverado or the 2.7L F150 but won't.
I feel like engineers are over-engineering just because they can.. Why improve an existing platform when you can make something less reliable, less efficient, less powerful, AND more expensive?
@@jrowland6717 is it more expensive? This will likely be the base engine replacing the current v6 at some point. The v8 is a higher price option. I'm not saying that it actually does cost less but just that it wouldn't make sense from a bean counting perspective for gm to do this if it wasn't actually cheaper to produce. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Perhaps this engine is designed for export to many markets where a special tax is assessed on engine's displacement, so the car maker must use a small but boosted engine to avert additional tax.
@warriorpluto : MPG translates directly to emissions, perfect combustion dictates that CO2 production is linear with gas consumption. - it gets worse when NOx gets factored in.
warriorpluto It’s still not helping overall with emissions if it takes more fuel to run over the life of the engine. It’s just inefficient in another way.
Lol! I remember one of the mechanics I worked with telling a customer "you have a great running 6-cylinder." Customer states "but it's a V-8!" only for the mechanic to reply "exactly.."
@@neilquinn Yeah, that made me scratch my head - since when is 2.7L "large" for a 4 cylinder? Cummins made a 4 cylinder diesel that was almost 4 L, and weighed nearly 800 lbs! It went into millions of bread vans across the US..
except that the 4 does produce more HP and more torque than the V8. More complicated - yes, but I'm sure they said that about the first engine that had 2 valves on it as well.
@@Francis-rs7zu No it doesn't. 2.7L I4 turbo 310 hp and 348 lb tq. 5.3L 355 hp and 383 lb tq. Official GM stats for the Silverado. Even the 91 octane CT4-V version doesn't meet the 5.3 specs.
It doesnt make as much power as a 5.3. But it is much better in fuel. Don't like the official numbers skew your view. The city real world fuel economy is immensely better. Highway is close, but still better on the 2.7T. I own a 2019 5.3 , it does get very good economy on the highway, terrible around town. I've put a few thousand miles on a 2.7T with a work truck. Very good city economy.
I mean.. cars (sedans & SUVs/ crossovers) today are getting so damn big you mind as well call them a "truck" or a "van" or at some point a "Boeing 747".
This engine's function is to look good on standarized emissions testing, where it will never be on boost. We need to go back to naturally aspirated i6 engines.
Agreed!! I had an old Chevy C-10 with a 250 in-line 6 that got 24mpg unloaded, with a crappy old single barrel Rochester carb. (on regular 88 octane gas). Too much over-engineering...
Exactly this engine is only used to lower their average emissions across their truck line up. It makes the EPA happy even if it will never actually do what they think in the real world.
Yep, newer engines aren't as impressive as they'd like us to believe. My old 4cycl 22R 2.4L got 30mpg on the highway several times. Yeah the truck was really light and I drove the speed limit ... but still, that's with a carb and no turbo. After the rebuild I could get on the gas, spin the wheels and turn it sideways chirping the wheels every gear shift. Even racing around with a lead foot I'd get 24mpg.
Youll Never Know hmm, my Gm truck has 200k miles with no repairs besides maintenance. My wife’s Honda has 120k miles with several major engine repairs a trans rebuild and a couple oil leaks.
Man I can just imagine what that complicated valve gear looks like with a few years and miles on it....hopefully the oil filter is doing its job of keeping the metallic powder from circulating further through the engine.....
A lot of new engines are like that. The new Toyota engine is crazy complicated and you'd better use the right oil and change it on time or there will be trouble. Think it's a 0 grade vis. Cam is pushed by oil. Wrong vis, it'll run like crap. More complicated, more computers, more to go wrong.
Lol I know right, I like GM's old stuff like the GenIII, LT1, Vortec even my 350TBI in my 95 yukon still runs good with 260k miles and it still passes smog here in the United Socialist Republic of California.
Perhaps this engine is designed for export to many markets where a special tax is assessed on engine's displacement, so the car maker must use a small but boosted engine.
I know right? Like after a bit of driving under load, that the metal might heat up and expand, coupled with the vibrations over time, might end up making contact. Resulting in quite the bind.
@@kolby4078 thank you for reminding me of this little handy bit of knowledge, which I was recently trying to internalize and etch into my brain, for some reason or other having to do with electronics repair. .040" = 1mm A Very Good Thing to know.
When I was 13 this would have seemed so cool, but after 30+ years repairing vehicles, now I just wonder what engineering disasters await in a new design of engines. Lets just hope the accountants didn't have too much influence over R and D.....
The turbo design seems sound in my less than expert opinion. It is the ridiculous cylinder deactivation system that I loathe. Pumping oil into dead cylinders can have only one result; an engine with an extremely short life expectancy. This has born out to be the case, but GM continues to build these engines.
@@johnhiggs5932 actually the issues with previous GM cylinder deactivation was it was oil pressure driven, so customers who use crappy oil or don't change regularly have issues. The way this system is designed should not have those issues, cam shaft lobe controlled by an actuator.
@@troyg3439 You are saying this to a person that has owned three generations of GM engines with cylinder deactivation. I have followed manufacturer’s recommended service schedules, to include updates, and only used quality lubricants. All three engines catastrophically failed prematurely. Gen 1 @ 117k miles. Gen 2 @ 69k miles. Gen 3 at 4,462 miles. All three engines exhibited ridiculously high oil consumption rates, revealed tremendous amounts of carbon buildup post detonation on deactivating cylinders, and were found to be fit for road use by dealer techs within days of complete failure. In each case failure occurred on deactivating cylinders. Blow GM smoke up an ignorant person’s ass. The truth is that they’ve been dodging responsibility for knowingly producing an inferior engine design for more than a decade. They’ve scammed their customers and made billions doing it.
Maybe by saying its designed for truck they wanted to say something like: "It will be strong enough for a truck, so putting it in a sedan will make it a very strong car"
Nah, reminds me of the 1970s when they put some Chevy engines in Olds/Buick and I think Cadillac's. Man was there an uproar. Nothing matched a Cadillac's engine back then. Those cars were floating clouds. In 1975 they had a 500 CID engine. I have a feeling Cadillac needed an engine and said - here we go. Let's get this new one. Probably some accountants involved again. What's the big deal? Engine's an engine, right?
@@johnstuartsmith I don't remember anyone asking me for a vin number. Model, year, and engine size they'd ask. I owned a Chev and Olds 350s. My high school car had a 305 which had a lot in common with the Chev 350. Thinking back I have owned more 350s than any other engine. I never had one of them let me down.
I recall the Mitsubishi Starion also had a 2.6L turbocharged "truck" engine. Had a restrictive over the valvecover intake line that when replaced with something less restrictive, and with a little sensor manipulation could run up to 14 psi with premium gas. Still slow to spool up, never got real boost in 1st gear, but 2nd gear up, it was a beast! Thanks for bringing back the memories!
@@20yearsfromthepast I've seen people thinking like this for real way too many times to automatically assume it's a joke ;) And a little reality reminder never hurts.
So GM made a super complicated, "modern" alternative to their pushrod V8 that offers all the latest advancements except the performance you're supposed to get in return for the simplicity and reliability you're giving up. Haven't I heard this story before? I think they called it a Northstar... Honestly, if it can't get better fuel economy than a V8 on the highway just imagine what it's going to do under sustained load while towing when it has to run pig rich to keep NOX under control.
a smart person would get the 5.3L to actually use the truck as a truck. I'm happy i got a 5.0 F-150 and not an eco-boost. it has 251,xxx kms on it currently and is still running well. everyone I know that's taken a 3.5 Eco-Boost to that kind of mileage has had expensive timing and turbo repairs... I can't see the GM 2.7L being any different.
@@ThePgR777 Yeah, it makes sense in a streamlined car, but a Silverado is heavy and draggy enough that this engine is never going to be in the good bit of its BSFC map except for maybe cruising at a steady 40 mph
Overly complicated overstressed fancy pants marketing-wank-filled engine that they hide under 200lbs of plastic? Par for the course on today's dealership lot I'm afraid. There's nowhere to turn if you want a modern vehicle that isn't built exactly like this one is. Why I stick with old iron; the rugged simplicity wins out for me. And hell, I have a stickshift in my '85 F150 with the 300, I get more or less the same highway mileage that a Silverado with this engine would get! *And I don't even have fuel injection!*
Hopefully what will hapen is these will be popular in rentals and company cars and after 100k-150k miles they will be avaliable for cheap (and for just as cheap you'll be able to swap it for something reliable). Or you could just buy a corolla
Toyota offer a 2.7 i4 petrol engine in the Hilux in Australia, but it is a shade smaller than this strange thing. I really do not understand why they'd go to all the balancing trouble of a large i4 when an i6 would be so much simpler and sweeter.
Even though 2TR's are an absolute pain in the ass to work on, they're super super reliable, this monstrosity from Chevrolet on the other side... Well, time will tell...
@@FXIIBeaver The tooling to make an I6 is as simple as it gets, it is not a reason. Toyota are having a relationship with BMW, the I6 is beside the point, it was not the reason. If making an I6 was a problem, tiny minnow Mazda wouldn't be working on their new I6 petrol and diesel as I write this.
@@martintaper7997 keep telling yourself that. Because the Supra is very much so a BMW built car. Toyota is doing everything they can to not build their own sport cars.
Matt H Hell, Cleetus would install 4 of them with a shot of nitrous to reduce lag even more. And it wouldn’t be a Cleetus job if the 4 turbos were in the engine compartment, then need to be over the hood line. Then develop a virtual windshield so you can drive it.
Drove a Holden Commodore V8 with cylinder deactivation. Terrible lag waiting for it to decide to use all cyls once I'd almost stopped then put the foot down again.
Right, and only makes slightly more power, and I'm assuming that's only because the caddy runs on premium while the chevy runs on regular, that explains the smaller difference in power. So they took a truck engine, tuned it for premium and called it a day basically.
As soon as I saw their method of cylinder deactivation, besides the cylinder deactivation itself, that was my first thought. Gonna have that slider shaking and making noise, sliding when it's not supposed to, wearing and not sliding because the oil pressure is leaking out
supernice_auto That’s no revolution. There’s nothing new in that engine, all the tech was already in cars probably over 10 years ago. This engine is just bad, low power, but bad fuel consumption. And the way GM is know, there’ll be enough potential for failures.
That's up to the moron owner. You know... the idiots that think that buying the "full-synthetic" engine oil means that they can go for 10k+ miles between oil changes... yet completely ignore the fact that most oil filters are not designed to filter fine particles and unburned fuel that's constantly contaminating engine oil. Especially in engines used for a high percentage of short-trips.
Considering Gearing & tire choice have a huge impact on fuel efficency and Im pretty sure the 5.3 has both different, thats not Apples to Apples. Edit also the 5.3 Numbers he cited were from the 2wd smallest 4 door cab configuration while the 2.7 is ONLY available with 4wd and the largest cab size as mentioned in numerous comment threads. Also almost universally real world independant testing has the 2.7 L better in the city and about 5 mpg better on the highway vs the 5.3L. Its even better in high altitude areas.
The reason the 2.7L was better in high altitudes has got to be because it's turboed from the factory, whereas NA engines suffer at high altitudes due to thinner air.
I know I am commenting 3 years after this video was put out I have 2 of the 2.7 engines they both get very good mileage and very responsive I am sure I made the right choice buying the 2,7 rather than the v8 's
Great video as always. Can you do one on the Ford 7.3L V8 truck engine? Would love to hear your thoughts on that engine from a durability reliability point of view. Thank you!
@@silverfoxslash no doubt the chinese can build cheaper cars although they will put an optional charge to have the car disinfected from any infectious viruses thus making their cheaper car cost the same as GM's junk.
What I find HILARIOUS, in regards to the "TRUCK" nomenclature, is how Honda calls their CRINGELINE er..... Ridgeline a "Truck". It's not a "Truck" b/c a "Truck" is traditionally based on a Frame, where as the Cringeline is nothing more than a "beefed" up unibody design, clearly making it a car, cuv or mini suv at best.
@Jimmy Jones & the Kool-Aide Crew Don't disagree with that, unfortunately the aesthetics are lacking (more car than truck, especially the 2nd gen - think the Baja was better) as well as the sales. Not sure why Honda keeps it around, when it's obvious that almost 95% of "Mid" size truck buyers prefer the Colorado/Canyon, Ranger & Tacoma, with the Taco receiving almost 50% of the sales. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Ford Maverick & Hyundai Santa Cruz comes out. I think a small truck, such as the old ranger, S10 and Hilux could do well for Urban settings. Still, a truck is truck only if it has a ladder type frame. Unibodies are cars. It's the marketing I don't like.
Since cylinders 2 and 3 can be disabled, it is also an advantage to have a separate path to the turbo to keep the pressure up in the path from the active cylinders.
A GM engine with slider cams. Yeah, nothing could go wrong, there ! I'd want nothing to do with that engine. The Cybertruck is looking better and better ...
@1:18 .. a single roller chain in front of the flexplate .. makes me want to beat newfangled CAD/Solidworks book smart engineers into new and exciting shapes with a 30 y.o. box wrench. Seems the last 20 years "serviceability" has become a dirty word on the drawing board.
@jack meehoff "They don't care about the customer or the product, only sales. So they make inferior products." yes, that is exactly what capitalism is all about- the dollar.
This would be a very interesting engine in a mid size, body-on-frame SUV. Or in a Colorado ZR2. I bet it would be pretty fun to drive and would get a lot better fuel economy than it does in the silverado.
I ordered the 2023 ZR2 which does come with this engine. A High output version with 430 lb-ft torque and 310 hp. They hadn't yet announced this when you made this comment 2 years ago, so I just wanted to give you credit for having this foresight. I'm actually pretty excited for the new ZR2 and 430 torque is gonna feel good👍🏻
Thanks for that video, the dual volute turbo is really interesting and good engineering, better efficiency without adding any moving parts. Jason, you should do a video on the most powerful production 4-cyl engine currently available. I will let you figure out which one the is.
If I was a GM powertrain design engineer, I would be sooooo wanting to develop an engine that's basically double this engine. 2.7x2=5.4, so GM could essentially develop a twin turbo dual valloot 5.3 Or 4.8 V8, now THAT would be an awesome engine.
In this episode of Engineering Explained:
A CT4-V is a truck;
An SUV is a Coupe;
And for better mileage on the highway, get the V8
SCREW the mileage. get a v8!
nice clarkson reference
James ties his shoes. Hammond drives a 🐢 and I enjoy tea in a tank.
I wasn’t surprised by the results and he set us up for this perfectly. (:
this is what happens when GM tries to make an Ecoboost without using too much copy paste.. 1 They fail.. 2 They continue gimmick "features" that don't actually do anything.
"I don't know the rules anymore"
None of us do, brother.
the rules didn't change.... Marijuana laws did... if you get really stoned you can fit a couch in the back seat... truck!
I’m going to refer to motorcycles as windowless panel vans.
I call trucks, cars with convertible trunks
I was out enjoying my bike today. Only 50hp (still faster than most cars) and no seat belts, airbags, bumpers, antilock brakes, accident avoidance, or safety systems. I'm totally surprised they let motorcycles on the road these days. I'm loving it more.
Hey men are women and women are men or both or neither or not or maybe or maybe not or could be but aren't. I even read about a transgender man or is it woman who identifies as a deer or is it a doe? I so confused. What was the question or was it the answer?
@@gsup5 this is gonna make me sleep with a smile thx
@@timjohnson1199 yeah if the motorcycle was invented his side of the turn of the century....don't reckon it would ever be approved.
Moral of the story just get two of those turbos and put them on the V8
Then stuff it into an S10
@@benjamins9121 👍
@@magnuspym like indy cars and F1
@@benjamins9121 sounds beastly.
You might have trouble getting the exhaust pulses to match up with the volutes since the firing order jumps from side to side. I still like the idea. Put the motor into an old Vega or Monza.
What I heard was “GM was able to produce a part-time 2 cylinder engine that is able to consume more fuel than a V8, it’s completely pointless. But it’s got a cool turbo!”
Did I get that right?
Well no. Epa gas mileage is a straight lie anyway, so... But it does get better mileage in the city. Which I think is actually the point
Put that turbo on an overhead cam, V-8 Ford and be done with it.
Sounds to me like you nailed it buddy
@@HarrisonCountyStudio you'd need two
@ B
Yes, absolutely!
There's nothing wrong with your comprehension abilities. It's the "engineering" end of it that's totally f-ed up.👍🏻😉
When you're towing uphill in your 4 banger Silverado and VTEC kicks in👌👌👌
I shoulda had a V-eighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttt!
Ahahahahaha perfect
Keep in mind a significant percentage of people buy pickup trucks and never tow anything or tow things that are very light like a jet ski. The four cylinder pickup is perfect for those type of people. But honestly so is the simple naturally aspirated v6 which is probably the smart choice.
He didn't mention what the city mileage is I'd be curious to see if perhaps that's where the great improvement is. If not then one really has to question what the hell was the point.
The city mpg improves by 3 with the 4 cylinder. Look at 5:51.
Basically what it is now lol
2027: Single Cylinder 7.0L for Heavy Truck Engine
I wouldn't expect single cylinders (instability, pumping losses), but three... Brrr. Let's hope not.
Imma get a GWR 5700 swap for me truck then, that 378.4 L 2 cylinder
Single cylinder with cylinder deactivation system, when you wanna go for that extra MPG.
2030: 3.6L Twin cylinder for high performance cars
big single cylinders are awesome less parts to fail
GM: we made a 4 cylinder that rivals the dodge viper's 8.4l V10 for fuel economy.
But, the new 4 will wear out sooner.
I think you'll find the aero and rolling drag co-efficients of a Dodge Viper is a bit better than a Chevy Silverado - and by a bit I mean incomparable. Now, compare the actual Dodge trucks that had the Dodge V10, and the average was about 10mpg.
@@acammer The dodge viper acr had a lot of wind resistance. The wing on the back is huge. There has never been a dodge truck with an 8.4l V10. There were a few with an 8.0l and an 8.3l, but never the 8.4l. My comment is a joke anyways. It's not meant to be 100% serious. It is a fact that this 4 cylinder gets similar fuel economy to a dodge viper though.
@@gasolinediesel972 I hear you on the joking, just firing back a bit. It's an interesting engine, but it does seem like a lot to go wrong. My truck is a dinosaur all mechanical 12 valve - just the way I like it.
@@gasolinediesel972 What Dodge truck had a V10?
The massive 8.0 Magnum V10 was available in the 1994 to 2003 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 models. Its 310hp and 450tq made it the most powerful gasoline engine available in a passenger pickup truck.
...
Dodge Ram 8.0 V10 Specs.
Engine Dodge 8.0 Magnum V10
Torque 450 lb-ft @ 2,400 RPM
you are correct sir
“I don’t know the rules anymore...” 🤣 Welcome to 2020 -lol
Va
I thought it was funny as well ! That's how I feel about what is going on in the world. Lol
Its a tiny shook up 2.7liter coke bottle.... Go?
The best line... So funny
Lol 😆
Dude I nearly choked when you said if you want better efficiency get the V8 lmaooo
But its true. V8s do get better economy. It takes a 4 cylinder 2x the rpm to get the car to move and to accelerate it takes more time meaning 0-60 takes longer burning more gas. Less torque means more rpm needed to move. V8 have lpts of torque it requires very little rpm to get it to move.
Did u know that a v8 motor only weighs 40 pound more then a 4 cylinder nd puts out twice the horsepower and torque. A chevy ls3 weighs about 450 lbs with oil and coolant in it. Its like having 1 horsepower per pound. 4 cylinders will cost u 2 pounds per 1 horsepower
302 v8 owner here. It's not that bad.
@@jackdaniels2657 you do realize that the four cylinder has more horsepower and torque than the v8 also your RPM explanation is completely false... V8s have much more rotating mass and cranking losses
@@jackdaniels2657 dude I don't know what 4 cylinder you're comparing this to but there's four cylinders that weigh less than 300 pounds and most ls are 5-550 all set
Cadillac: we have brand new 4 cylinder which is less efficient than V8
in the next episode of the year 2020 show, Tesla: we have brand new bigger batteries which have less range
Could be worse. You could be Subaru and have a 2.5L turbo boxer 4 that gets worse highway gas mileage than an 8.4L V10.
@@Epotheros and breaks before 50k
@@Epotheros really? My ej257 in my 07 sti gets 24+ hwy. You just gotta know how to drive...
But I bet the 4 is cheaper to make so it most likely it down to profit
It's insane
engineers: we see 0 valvetrain issues with this design.
average consumer: hold my lobe shavings
I was under the impression that cam shafts were going away.
@@nickcormier8571 and how exactly would they be going away?
@@FXIIBeaver with electronics. One time fuel injectors were cam shaft controlled. Why not intake and exhaust valves?
@@nickcormier8571 certain reasons but tell me your thought process.
@@FXIIBeaver I don't have one. I'm merely a mechanic. I remember an article from a while back of electronics eliminating the cam shaft, but as far as specifics I don't have any.
Engineer “ Look at how complicated we can make an engine”; Marketing “What a great marketing tool”; Parts and Service “We’re in the money now!”
Hahahaha facts!!
The future is grim to us guys that know.
Techs "God damnit!"
A dealership's dream.
And it even gets less gas mileage than a less complicated 5.3L V8! What a deal!
Cool turbo. The engine itself looks like a solution in search of a problem.
What is that even supposed to mean. You might as well have just said "I hate change and innovation"
@@Jimaybob nope he's right, so it's all about fuel mileage in the end because lesser fuel lesser emissions, right? So the engine is lighter and uses less material which is good but fuel mileage is worse than the 5.3 and probably it won't last as long as the 5.3, in the end I can't see a real advantage.
The same thing people are realizing about downsized turbo engines
@@Jimaybob it wont work in the real world. Any of the mpgs for example aren't achievable by average Joe in the real world. It's a scam. I'll keep my 1jz gte sure its not the most fuel efficient but it will be more reliable than pretty much any modern engine
@@chappy2121 I agree. Is giving up 5 MPGs worth significant reliability reduction? From an owner perspective, I think most people say hell no. I think from an environmental perspective the carbon footprint of producing additional motors/cars would offset that mild MPG difference as well.
All the regulations are about right here right now, and none have any consideration for long term impacts.
I love that rear mounted oil pump, just perfect for the "not known to fail" GM oil pumps....
In longtitudal applications that's actually good, as it's easier to reach than a front mounted one
GM and reliability go hand in hand...off a cliff.
Goes with the also "not known to fail" rear mounted vacuum pump.
Have a look at the V8 at a 150k miles vs this.
My biggest issues were the check valves on the 2.4 eco tech’s always had weird oil pressure issues with the 2 I had because of failing check valves that controlled the oil flow to the camshaft solenoids.
This engine was voted most likely to spend all its time in the dealer's service shop.
Displacing the 4-6-8...
Had mine for almost 2 years... no problems
@@BuzzLOLOLMuliple-displacing it, though?
Actually that’s 5.3L that’s in the shops. Lol
Ls4 cylinder is way badder
"I don't know the rules anymore"
That cut. That one right there. I felt you, brother.
I wondered this as well thank god im not alone 🙂
i laughed so hard when he said that
@@osbu But we called them boats, not trucks. Some boats were wider than the tiny pickups people drove at the time.
Silverado engineer: I have a great idea for a new fuel efficient truck engine. Everyone is going to love it!
Truck buyer: I'm not paying extra for a smaller engine with worse fuel economy!
Silverado engineer: No one is buying this engine. Now what are we going to do with it?
Cadillac engineer: Hold my beer!
It's only to increase city mpgs....
Funny enough Chevy didnt list a 4-cyl for their Silverado. (It may have changed by now)
They listed a 5.3 V8, a 4.3 V6, and a 2.7. Not a 2.7 L4, just a 2.7. Funny, that
I'll buy that engine and throw it in my Saturn Sky with a3582r and beat the snot out of it....🏁
Joel Martin Exactly...
New turbo prob cost $5000.
You know, I’ve always wanted to know I’d the Cadillac CT-4 competed with the BMW 2 Series or 3 Series. Glad to know it’s competing with GMC Sierra, Ford F-150, RAM 1500, Toyota Tundra, and so on. 😆
Hahaha, if you can't beat them, change who your competition is!
"CT4-V has more payload, more towing capacity, more range, than all Smart EVs!"
Sir, this is a Target check-out line.
@@EngineeringExplained 2+2=Fish :)
@@EngineeringExplainedcan you please review the all new traverse engine 2.5 4 cylinder turbocharge LK0
I've been a mechanic all my life and retired now. I got to work on 60s through 2000s cars and trucks. I loved seeing the evolution to what we have now. This valve control system is remarkable but cam less engines are here, but not yet in production cars.
For how neglectful and just useless most people are for ANYTHING to do with their vehicles, sure. For somebody who wants a reliable driver they can fix? yeah no.
Rotary motor 😀
@@baileyhatfield4273what? Camless valve trains are much easier to service and repair, you just change the broken solenoid!
And no more catastrophic engine failures because valves aren’t physically able to fall into the combustion chamber anymore.
Unfortunately the forced use of electric vehicles by governments worldwide means that this amazing technology was never implemented to the mass market and will never happen again since it’s forbidden from 2030 on to bring cars with a internal combustion engine to the mass market.
I won’t mention the catastrophic events this will trigger because it’s just too depressing.
Just remember that free valve systems are incredibly reliable and powerful!
The only negative is a higher price in the first generations, but that would vanish in a normal production cycle without political intervention..
A Cadillac sedan is a truck, a Mercedes genuine SUV is a coupe and if you want the best fuel economy on the highway get the V8.
"We have just lost cabin pressure"
ok...
A gen 1 Lexus RX is a station wagon
2030: Single cylinder cruiseship engine in sports cars
Briggs & Stratton...?🤔
NOR KRITT 2030 no more oil and ww3 in full blast due to water and food shortages
Made for trucks
Just attach the ship piston to the back of the car, insert car and piston in the cylinder, and fire it once. Outstanding mpg, I'd love to see how far it would go
Jijiji
Volute: A deep-water marine mollusc. Why are 2 of those in my engine?
Lmao😂
because a pair of squids would get tied into knots
One by itself would be lonely :)
Parked near the coast during a hurricane?
Volute can be found on a centrifugal pump. Like a compressor what makes the snail shape and allows for different speeds to accomodote flow/pressure curve
Cadillac : “ You think the Northstar was bad? ….hold my beer “
Hold my head gaskets
You are exactly right!!!
when u suck at being a mechanic, you cant fix simple things like northstar engines, replace the head stud for bigger studs and the northstar will run forever unlike every other 32v american v8
Time for the starter to die...
@@retrocompaq5212 Cadillac still deserves to get roasted for not making the head studs a proper size from the factory.
"I don't know the rules anymore"... Welcome to 2020, where nobody knows the rules and you can make things up as you go.
Don't go getting political now.
Lol is that from "whose line is it anyway"?
Lol
Like genders PepeLaugh
@@ghoulbuster1 There is no such thing as gender - It's just a social construct. Physical reality is totally irrelevant..... apparently :-s
Jason that rant in the beginning had me in tears, I feel the same reading so many things in the auto news world these days. lol
Haha a little consistency in marketing messages is all I ask! Like "Aluminum bad, steel good!" Uhh... aluminum is fine for many, many things.
@@EngineeringExplained Only larger gas 4 cyl engine I know of was the Porsche 944 S2. 3.0 L
@@Francis-rs7zu its probably a boxer though
@@NoName-gv6nm It's an inline 4 cylinder. They had a turbo version of it as well in the 968. Early versions of it made around 200 hp where the later one found in the 968 made around 240 hp. Even though it was large the horsepower numbers are still pretty impressive for the time. The turbo version had an 8 valve head instead of the 16 valve on the NA version. It also made, I think, 300 hp and almost 400 ft lbs of torque. Might have been closer to 350 or 360 ft lbs. Still a lot of torque from a production 4 banger. If the HP was lower, it would just sound like 4 cylinder Diesel numbers of today.
@@NoName-gv6nm Not hardly.
GM: how can we make our Cadillac line even more complicated and less reliable?
Engineers and accountants: we got this!
U are not wrong
I work at GM in spring hill Tennessee I can confirm. Our engineers can't even make the warehouse run correctly with a system that makes sense
Exactly
@@sheldondrewett4123 Greetings former Saturn guy!
@El Tigre haha, a friend of mine had one of those! Cimaron?
Is that engine for a TRUCK!?
A 4 cylinder engine in a truck? Apparently yes, it's a thing. But hey, it's got 310 horsepower and tons of torque, amirite?
But the sad truth is most people driving pickup trucks aren't hauling anything other than super light stuff. And they don't go off roading (no, dirt roads don't count, and parking on the grass doesn't count either). So most people really should be driving the 4 cylinder Silverado or the 2.7L F150 but won't.
@@electric7487 That engine won't last.
@@rickitysplitz7035 depends how strong the bottom end.
Chevy has same thing in full size new trucks: 270 HP turbo 4 banger...
I think it was designed for TRUCKS.
6:17 A Dual volute turbo has two volutes. I come here for hard hitting facts like this.
Fax 📠
As long as its not con-voluted
@@mitsuracer87 Bam! Right?!
Really? does anyone give a volute. lol
Less highway mpg out of their “truck” 4 cylinder than their V8. Go home GM, you’re drunk.
I feel like engineers are over-engineering just because they can.. Why improve an existing platform when you can make something less reliable, less efficient, less powerful, AND more expensive?
@@jrowland6717 is it more expensive? This will likely be the base engine replacing the current v6 at some point. The v8 is a higher price option. I'm not saying that it actually does cost less but just that it wouldn't make sense from a bean counting perspective for gm to do this if it wasn't actually cheaper to produce. Maybe I'm wrong though.
Perhaps this engine is designed for export to many markets where a special tax is assessed on engine's displacement, so the car maker must use a small but boosted engine to avert additional tax.
@warriorpluto : MPG translates directly to emissions, perfect combustion dictates that CO2 production is linear with gas consumption. - it gets worse when NOx gets factored in.
warriorpluto It’s still not helping overall with emissions if it takes more fuel to run over the life of the engine. It’s just inefficient in another way.
My I4 from 20 years ago has 2-cyl mode. Just haven’t figured out how to turn it off yet...
snowdaysrule2 hahaha
Lol! I remember one of the mechanics I worked with telling a customer "you have a great running 6-cylinder." Customer states "but it's a V-8!" only for the mechanic to reply "exactly.."
I can't wait to watch hoovies garage 20 years from now when he covers this engine and all of its problems.
You won't have to wait 20 years.
That's a lot of engineering to avoid making it a V6. It always seemed to me above 2.4L is the magical point 2 more cylinders should be considered.
if it was a 2.7L turbo V6 it'd be the engine out of my ford F-150 ;)
@@taterc229 I love spanking those Fords with my turbo diesel truck. Lol ;)
There are tons of 2.5L 4 cylinders out there - Subaru EJ's, Toyota/Lexus 2.5L 4 cylinders, etc.
I have a 3.9 4 cylinder transplant in a Jeep and i dont agree with the 2.4 cutoff. Lol
@@neilquinn Yeah, that made me scratch my head - since when is 2.7L "large" for a 4 cylinder? Cummins made a 4 cylinder diesel that was almost 4 L, and weighed nearly 800 lbs! It went into millions of bread vans across the US..
An unnecessarily complicated engine that is less efficient and produces less torque than the more cost effective V8. GM you've done it again
except that the 4 does produce more HP and more torque than the V8. More complicated - yes, but I'm sure they said that about the first engine that had 2 valves on it as well.
The I4 is certainly cheaper to build, so there you go.
How long before we see someone engine swap this into a 94 honda civic and gets 1000hp all motor
@@Francis-rs7zu No it doesn't. 2.7L I4 turbo 310 hp and 348 lb tq. 5.3L 355 hp and 383 lb tq. Official GM stats for the Silverado. Even the 91 octane CT4-V version doesn't meet the 5.3 specs.
It doesnt make as much power as a 5.3. But it is much better in fuel. Don't like the official numbers skew your view. The city real world fuel economy is immensely better. Highway is close, but still better on the 2.7T. I own a 2019 5.3 , it does get very good economy on the highway, terrible around town. I've put a few thousand miles on a 2.7T with a work truck. Very good city economy.
I mean.. cars (sedans & SUVs/ crossovers) today are getting so damn big you mind as well call them a "truck" or a "van" or at some point a "Boeing 747".
Well, if Boeing goes under from the pandemic, maybe they will start making vans, lol
That is exactly how I feel when driving my 2017 ram 3500 4 door long bed dually, might as well be a big passenger jet
It's so noticeable when I pull up next to a old outback in my 2019 Impreza.
My '85 F150 is smaller than the current generation of Ranger. WTF is with that?!
So the takeaway is V8….
This engine's function is to look good on standarized emissions testing, where it will never be on boost.
We need to go back to naturally aspirated i6 engines.
Agreed!! I had an old Chevy C-10 with a 250 in-line 6 that got 24mpg unloaded, with a crappy old single barrel Rochester carb. (on regular 88 octane gas). Too much over-engineering...
Exactly this engine is only used to lower their average emissions across their truck line up. It makes the EPA happy even if it will never actually do what they think in the real world.
That or their old high output v6 motors.
If they were required to test with 4 x 180 pound adults on board, the 4 cylinder engine would fail.
Yep, newer engines aren't as impressive as they'd like us to believe.
My old 4cycl 22R 2.4L got 30mpg on the highway several times. Yeah the truck was really light and I drove the speed limit ... but still, that's with a carb and no turbo. After the rebuild I could get on the gas, spin the wheels and turn it sideways chirping the wheels every gear shift. Even racing around with a lead foot I'd get 24mpg.
seems like GM answering a question no-one asked
4bt loud and proud.
i guess ford asked? is a i4 better than v8 ford says yes, chevy says no.
Too complicated waste of energy , imagine trying to rebuild that engine
I know it will so hard to rebuild so costly:(
Yes. Just get the V8.
It will cost drastically more to repair then it will ever save in fuel cost
Kinda like the Vortec 2800?
Youll Never Know hmm, my Gm truck has 200k miles with no repairs besides maintenance. My wife’s Honda has 120k miles with several major engine repairs a trans rebuild and a couple oil leaks.
Man I can just imagine what that complicated valve gear looks like with a few years and miles on it....hopefully the oil filter is doing its job of keeping the metallic powder from circulating further through the engine.....
A lot of new engines are like that. The new Toyota engine is crazy complicated and you'd better use the right oil and change it on time or there will be trouble. Think it's a 0 grade vis. Cam is pushed by oil. Wrong vis, it'll run like crap. More complicated, more computers, more to go wrong.
@@robertthomas5906 Toyota VVT has existed for more than two decades and have no problems
Bmw vanos hawe ben there fore 2 decades whit no problems
Forgott honda vtech same here att least 2 decades
This engine wasn’t developed for truck applications. It was developed for parts bin application.
android 95203 for sure
Lol I know right, I like GM's old stuff like the GenIII, LT1, Vortec even my 350TBI in my 95 yukon still runs good with 260k miles and it still passes smog here in the United Socialist Republic of California.
martinez1701a haha USRC
GM is pretty much only making trucks and electrics going forward, so made for a truck and made for the parts bin are kinda the same thing.
All this started when Ford made a mustang 2 door RWD coupe but as an all electric AWD SUV.
Over-Engineering Explained.
It's not "over" engineering. It's just the level of engineering required for modern full-size trucks (1/2-tons) to comply with CAFE regulations.
Perhaps this engine is designed for export to many markets where a special tax is assessed on engine's displacement, so the car maker must use a small but boosted engine.
1mm spacing of the turbine from the housing sounds like a bad idea.
Nah don’t worry. The bearing will outlast the block 😂😂
I know right?
Like after a bit of driving under load, that the metal might heat up and expand, coupled with the vibrations over time, might end up making contact. Resulting in quite the bind.
that's forty thousandths of an inch, that's not a small gap.
@@kolby4078 thank you for reminding me of this little handy bit of knowledge, which I was recently trying to internalize and etch into my brain, for some reason or other having to do with electronics repair. .040" = 1mm
A Very Good Thing to know.
A more vibratey, inefficient engine from a clean slate design out of GM. Great job....
Every time I consider buying a GM product I see garbage like this and back away.
The valute turbo seems to be the only thing interesting and well done about this engine lol, I wonder how this would perform with a different cam
They might as well reinvest in rotaries are this point 😂
It's technically more efficient the overall combined is better
@@Draft_7 Again? It cost GM a cool billion in 1965 dollars last time they went down that rabbit hole.
When I was 13 this would have seemed so cool, but after 30+ years repairing vehicles, now I just wonder what engineering disasters await in a new design of engines. Lets just hope the accountants didn't have too much influence over R and D.....
The turbo design seems sound in my less than expert opinion. It is the ridiculous cylinder deactivation system that I loathe. Pumping oil into dead cylinders can have only one result; an engine with an extremely short life expectancy. This has born out to be the case, but GM continues to build these engines.
@@johnhiggs5932 actually the issues with previous GM cylinder deactivation was it was oil pressure driven, so customers who use crappy oil or don't change regularly have issues.
The way this system is designed should not have those issues, cam shaft lobe controlled by an actuator.
@@troyg3439
You are saying this to a person that has owned three generations of GM engines with cylinder deactivation. I have followed manufacturer’s recommended service schedules, to include updates, and only used quality lubricants. All three engines catastrophically failed prematurely. Gen 1 @ 117k miles. Gen 2 @ 69k miles. Gen 3 at 4,462 miles. All three engines exhibited ridiculously high oil consumption rates, revealed tremendous amounts of carbon buildup post detonation on deactivating cylinders, and were found to be fit for road use by dealer techs within days of complete failure. In each case failure occurred on deactivating cylinders.
Blow GM smoke up an ignorant person’s ass. The truth is that they’ve been dodging responsibility for knowingly producing an inferior engine design for more than a decade. They’ve scammed their customers and made billions doing it.
@@Zzrdemon6633 It's not the engineers. It's the bean counters that control how well we can do our job
None, they are going full electric..........
Let's be honest Jason is slowly losing his mind with all the automotive decisions.
Maybe by saying its designed for truck they wanted to say something like: "It will be strong enough for a truck, so putting it in a sedan will make it a very strong car"
Nah, reminds me of the 1970s when they put some Chevy engines in Olds/Buick and I think Cadillac's. Man was there an uproar. Nothing matched a Cadillac's engine back then. Those cars were floating clouds. In 1975 they had a 500 CID engine.
I have a feeling Cadillac needed an engine and said - here we go. Let's get this new one. Probably some accountants involved again. What's the big deal? Engine's an engine, right?
@@robertthomas5906 Back then, at the parts counter, we'd want the VIN number before selling anybody a GM "350 V-8" engine part.
@@johnstuartsmith I don't remember anyone asking me for a vin number. Model, year, and engine size they'd ask. I owned a Chev and Olds 350s. My high school car had a 305 which had a lot in common with the Chev 350. Thinking back I have owned more 350s than any other engine. I never had one of them let me down.
Porsche 968 has a 3.0L 4-banger, and was a great car. Privileged to drive a factory Turbo variant once. Quite rare.
Yes it was but Porsche knows how to make a engine . GM has problems with basic engines this one is a complicated one .
That V8 highway economy reaction was perfect.
this has got to be the funniest engineering explained video iv'e seen in a long time
Hell ya!
Nah have u seen the one hating on the Mercedes??
I recall the Mitsubishi Starion also had a 2.6L turbocharged "truck" engine. Had a restrictive over the valvecover intake line that when replaced with something less restrictive, and with a little sensor manipulation could run up to 14 psi with premium gas. Still slow to spool up, never got real boost in 1st gear, but 2nd gear up, it was a beast! Thanks for bringing back the memories!
My mom's SUV uses a 2.8L 4 cylinder. Is that considered giant?
@@JoelHernandez-tz3vkYou better go count the spark plugs, betting it's a 6 cylinder.
With crazy builds like this I'm expecting to see a 1.2L W12
It's definitely not going this way. More cylinders - more costs and less efficiency. You'd sooner see a 1.2 I2.
@@8Hshan Joke misses top over your head
100ccm V16 ftw!
I really hope that there will be a time, where 2.4 V8 or the good old 3.0 V12 could be a thing again.
@@20yearsfromthepast I've seen people thinking like this for real way too many times to automatically assume it's a joke ;) And a little reality reminder never hurts.
So GM made a super complicated, "modern" alternative to their pushrod V8 that offers all the latest advancements except the performance you're supposed to get in return for the simplicity and reliability you're giving up. Haven't I heard this story before? I think they called it a Northstar... Honestly, if it can't get better fuel economy than a V8 on the highway just imagine what it's going to do under sustained load while towing when it has to run pig rich to keep NOX under control.
a smart person would get the 5.3L to actually use the truck as a truck.
I'm happy i got a 5.0 F-150 and not an eco-boost. it has 251,xxx kms on it currently and is still running well. everyone I know that's taken a 3.5 Eco-Boost to that kind of mileage has had expensive timing and turbo repairs... I can't see the GM 2.7L being any different.
@@attananightshadow exactly why I also got the 5.3L, to prevent headaches trying to maintain the engine. Durability at the cost of performance.
In the 2 cylinder mode in the CT4-V It will save a lot of fuel compared to a V8 and Im sure It will be reliable
@@ThePgR777 - As reliable as other GM cylinder deactivation technology... That is to say, fine during the first 3 years and chewing cams after that.
@@ThePgR777 Yeah, it makes sense in a streamlined car, but a Silverado is heavy and draggy enough that this engine is never going to be in the good bit of its BSFC map except for maybe cruising at a steady 40 mph
We’ll see how cool it is after 50,000 miles. Seems like Northstar 2.0.
Overly complicated overstressed fancy pants marketing-wank-filled engine that they hide under 200lbs of plastic?
Par for the course on today's dealership lot I'm afraid. There's nowhere to turn if you want a modern vehicle that isn't built exactly like this one is. Why I stick with old iron; the rugged simplicity wins out for me. And hell, I have a stickshift in my '85 F150 with the 300, I get more or less the same highway mileage that a Silverado with this engine would get! *And I don't even have fuel injection!*
Hopefully what will hapen is these will be popular in rentals and company cars and after 100k-150k miles they will be avaliable for cheap (and for just as cheap you'll be able to swap it for something reliable).
Or you could just buy a corolla
@@TheLastCrankers I'd rather just buy a Ford from the 1930s and be done with it.
Northstar is actually a fantastic engine besides the head bolts
I bet you it's the same aluminum steel alloy for the engine block as well
Toyota offer a 2.7 i4 petrol engine in the Hilux in Australia, but it is a shade smaller than this strange thing. I really do not understand why they'd go to all the balancing trouble of a large i4 when an i6 would be so much simpler and sweeter.
Tooling. GM hasn't made an I6 in decades. Same reason Toyota paid BMW for their I6.
Even though 2TR's are an absolute pain in the ass to work on, they're super super reliable, this monstrosity from Chevrolet on the other side... Well, time will tell...
@@FXIIBeaver The tooling to make an I6 is as simple as it gets, it is not a reason. Toyota are having a relationship with BMW, the I6 is beside the point, it was not the reason. If making an I6 was a problem, tiny minnow Mazda wouldn't be working on their new I6 petrol and diesel as I write this.
@@martintaper7997 keep telling yourself that. Because the Supra is very much so a BMW built car. Toyota is doing everything they can to not build their own sport cars.
packaging. tough to squeeze a tranverse I6 between the front wheels.
Balance shaft: An engineer’s admission of defeat. 😁
Ok fine.
@De Mill But they offer Cummins engines. And Cummins have balancers in their 4bt diesels.
I thought that balance shaft was a penis nickname for yoga enthusiasts...
How about connecting rod?
Gearloose Naah. Don’t think so. Pretty sure they’re essential in a piston engine.
“Twin Dual Volute Turbskis, hell yeah brother!” -Cleetus McFarland
Need cletus to reply
Matt H Hell, Cleetus would install 4 of them with a shot of nitrous to reduce lag even more. And it wouldn’t be a Cleetus job if the 4 turbos were in the engine compartment, then need to be over the hood line. Then develop a virtual windshield so you can drive it.
Yohann67 and then blow it up on the dyno
Matt H It wouldn’t be the same without at least one explosion ;-)
Cleetus fan here! Yeah🤘🏼😂😂
"Maybe a Cadillac sedan can be called a truck. I don't know the "rules?" anymore"
That's exactly how I feel about most things these days!
Air springs? Sounds like a good way to waste energy lol
in theory it is energy neutral.
Cylinder deactivation on a 4 cyl. NO THANKS!!!
Corey Allert it's been a thing for awhile now.
Just deactivate all the cylinders. Zero emissions
@biff s bet you you've been in one and didn't even know it
Drove a Holden Commodore V8 with cylinder deactivation. Terrible lag waiting for it to decide to use all cyls once I'd almost stopped then put the foot down again.
They might just as well run it as a two stroke
Cadillac: look at this incredible unique engine we designed!
Chevy: you mean, OUR engine.
*Soviet national anthem begins to play
cadillac IS chevrolet
Cadillac used to actually design their own engines. That stopped after the North Star.
Right, and only makes slightly more power, and I'm assuming that's only because the caddy runs on premium while the chevy runs on regular, that explains the smaller difference in power. So they took a truck engine, tuned it for premium and called it a day basically.
they should call it the cadoo experiment, thats what it's always been
@@nomercyinc6783 No, they are both GM. Thats like saying Audi is Lamborghini. They share some tech and a parent company, but still very different.
>sliding camshaft
>General motors
Oh no...
GM had a venture with Honda once before they are just implementing...their...own... sadness and regret into what could had bee...a good engine. ;-;
Next up: 0.5l quad turbo single cylinder
Definitely will blow up right after the 3 year warranty expires
I watched the whole video just to say this motor absolutely RIDDLED with potential problems 🤣🤣
As soon as I saw their method of cylinder deactivation, besides the cylinder deactivation itself, that was my first thought. Gonna have that slider shaking and making noise, sliding when it's not supposed to, wearing and not sliding because the oil pressure is leaking out
The same can be said ay anything radically different when it comes to engineering. Welcome to evolution.
David wait for it
supernice_auto That’s no revolution. There’s nothing new in that engine, all the tech was already in cars probably over 10 years ago.
This engine is just bad, low power, but bad fuel consumption. And the way GM is know, there’ll be enough potential for failures.
This cam system has been used on Audi engines for several years.
mmmmm more bearings to fail... i love it
Yep and balance shaft chains behind the flywheel, yum, yum.
That's up to the moron owner. You know... the idiots that think that buying the "full-synthetic" engine oil means that they can go for 10k+ miles between oil changes... yet completely ignore the fact that most oil filters are not designed to filter fine particles and unburned fuel that's constantly contaminating engine oil. Especially in engines used for a high percentage of short-trips.
Your explanation is so clear and transparent lol really though great job you cam teach
Once again, GM underwhelmed the automotive world with underachieving cylinder deactivation. Get the V8 in another brand.
The largest 4 cyl engine is a 89-91 Porsche 944 m44,
s2 3.0liter 208hp
Sold in a road car today.
I was going to mention this, then I remembered the Fiat Beast of Turin and its 28.5 liter 4 cylinder
Don't forget the early '60s Pontiac Tempest with its 1/2 V8 four cylinder 3.2 L
Isuzu had 3.9l and 4.1l 4 banger....
@@fadzlenkadir6014 key word is "had". this is about what is today in production
6:07 Jason is rethinking everything he has ever said
Considering Gearing & tire choice have a huge impact on fuel efficency and Im pretty sure the 5.3 has both different, thats not Apples to Apples.
Edit also the 5.3 Numbers he cited were from the 2wd smallest 4 door cab configuration while the 2.7 is ONLY available with 4wd and the largest cab size as mentioned in numerous comment threads.
Also almost universally real world independant testing has the 2.7 L better in the city and about 5 mpg better on the highway vs the 5.3L. Its even better in high altitude areas.
AND better low speed torque for sure....
The reason the 2.7L was better in high altitudes has got to be because it's turboed from the factory, whereas NA engines suffer at high altitudes due to thinner air.
I've got a 2017 Silverado double cab with a 5.3 that gets about 18 mpg in the city and 23 might on the highway in the summer.
I know I am commenting 3 years after this video was put out I have 2 of the 2.7 engines they both get very good mileage and very responsive I am sure I made the right choice buying the 2,7 rather than the v8 's
Great video as always. Can you do one on the Ford 7.3L V8 truck engine? Would love to hear your thoughts on that engine from a durability reliability point of view. Thank you!
Well one thing for sure it will be more durable than what this price of crap is!
The ol' 7.3 IDI from the late 80s? Gutless, but indestrucible. No stronger than a 460 gasser, but better economy.
Cadillac = "Truck" company. GMC = "Car" company. All fixed now. :)
Thomas Breithaupt ....GM..... failing company of junk....
I'm pretty sure GMC stands fo General Motors Cars
@@TheReacTT General Motor Company
@@ronaldhickman9953 it will be awesome when does and Chevy go away, Chinese can probably make cheaper vehicles than Americans ever can.
@@silverfoxslash no doubt the chinese can build cheaper cars although they will put an optional charge to have the car disinfected from any infectious viruses thus making their cheaper car cost the same as GM's junk.
Trash talk! 👍
I don't know the rules anymore 🤣
It feels good to let it out sometimes!
@@EngineeringExplained right on
@@EngineeringExplained i hope you dont hate me but i made your confused faces a whatsapp sticker pack.. 🤣
@@Sireristof1332 Haha, how do I find this? Shoot me an e-mail (about page of YT channel). Thanks!
@@EngineeringExplained sure thing!
What I find HILARIOUS, in regards to the "TRUCK" nomenclature, is how Honda calls their CRINGELINE er..... Ridgeline a "Truck". It's not a "Truck" b/c a "Truck" is traditionally based on a Frame, where as the Cringeline is nothing more than a "beefed" up unibody design, clearly making it a car, cuv or mini suv at best.
@Jimmy Jones & the Kool-Aide Crew Don't disagree with that, unfortunately the aesthetics are lacking (more car than truck, especially the 2nd gen - think the Baja was better) as well as the sales. Not sure why Honda keeps it around, when it's obvious that almost 95% of "Mid" size truck buyers prefer the Colorado/Canyon, Ranger & Tacoma, with the Taco receiving almost 50% of the sales.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when the Ford Maverick & Hyundai Santa Cruz comes out.
I think a small truck, such as the old ranger, S10 and Hilux could do well for Urban settings.
Still, a truck is truck only if it has a ladder type frame. Unibodies are cars. It's the marketing I don't like.
All dislikes have to be the designers of this engine. Nearly died laughing 5:50
Since cylinders 2 and 3 can be disabled, it is also an advantage to have a separate path to the turbo to keep the pressure up in the path from the active cylinders.
Does it matter on low load? I would like to see power vs boost curve with 2 to 4 cylinder modes
Not really, the deactivated cylinders have their exhaust valves closed
A GM engine with slider cams. Yeah, nothing could go wrong, there !
I'd want nothing to do with that engine.
The Cybertruck is looking better and better ...
Idk, Buick did a really good job on their's in the 80s and 90s, Buick 3.8 v6s are near indestructible.
@@ghost-jesus This isnt the 80s and 90s though...
@@hunterace9176 youre right, its worse.
I always get my rocks off learning what the engines are doing at any given circumstance.
Cadillac: I identify myself as a Truck
Mercedes: I identify myself as a Coupe
When I see the word volute, I automatically associate it with CONVOLUTED.
Check out Auto Expert's channel
@@tonyppe which video?
@@luisfelipewellenkamp5805 Any / All of them.
@1:18 .. a single roller chain in front of the flexplate .. makes me want to beat newfangled CAD/Solidworks book smart engineers into new and exciting shapes with a 30 y.o. box wrench. Seems the last 20 years "serviceability" has become a dirty word on the drawing board.
yup. throw it away and buy a new one. welcome to capitalism.
@@comanche119You say "capitalism" as if you know a better way! 😆
To be fair the timing chains we’ve seen on the LS motors forever rarely ever need messed with. It’s not a routine item like a belt would be.
EPA is pushing all manufacturers also green New deal, globalist agenda
@jack meehoff "They don't care about the customer or the product, only sales. So they make inferior products." yes, that is exactly what capitalism is all about- the dollar.
This would be a very interesting engine in a mid size, body-on-frame SUV. Or in a Colorado ZR2. I bet it would be pretty fun to drive and would get a lot better fuel economy than it does in the silverado.
I ordered the 2023 ZR2 which does come with this engine. A High output version with 430 lb-ft torque and 310 hp.
They hadn't yet announced this when you made this comment 2 years ago, so I just wanted to give you credit for having this foresight. I'm actually pretty excited for the new ZR2 and 430 torque is gonna feel good👍🏻
@@joalyincontroly4379Ive had my 23 canyon AT4 since last July. Hope you are enjoying your truck as I am.
@@mt186Yeah thanks man, it finally showed up in September and I love it.
(sigh) General Motors. Run by accountants who do all they can to ruin great engineering.
Whereas Toyota accountants ruin not only the engineering, but also the warranty.
You nailed it!!
Reminds me of FOMOCO when McNamara was in charge. Falcons cratered until Lee Iacocca put Mustand sheet metal on them.
@@hochhaul A toyota is a MUCH better vehicle than a GM.
So basically everything it takes to make that engine, could in reality make a full-size 1968 Chevy Half Ton with a straight 6 in it.
Overall we'd probably be much better off with that '68 C10.
Fire in bolt battery r bad goes fast sorry that not good enough
@@DHW256 Half ton is a C-20. Those old Chevy's were good trucks. I had a few.
Jason: Largest four cylinder sold today.
*Laughs in 3.0L 1989 Porsche 944 S2*
M44/41 just for the record.
1989 is not today.
He just said "sold today."
This isn't 1989 tho
Ah my bad guys, thought it was still 1989.
Thanks for that video, the dual volute turbo is really interesting and good engineering, better efficiency without adding any moving parts. Jason, you should do a video on the most powerful production 4-cyl engine currently available. I will let you figure out which one the is.
Technology is great when it advances on specifications. This engine does nothing that moves the engine world forward. I'll stuck with the V8 thank you
6:11 spoken like a true engineer. Who cares if it's useful, it technically neat!
No no no. I'm an engineer and we like useful stuff. It's physicists you're thinking about.
@@soaringvulture mostly agreed, I also like useful stuff but every now and then we go a bit overboard with something just because it's cool
“I identify as a truck engine, whom are you to say I’m not”
Oh dear
Check your privilege light
Lmao 🤣
Are you a Cat or a Cummins?
What if the Check Engine light comes on? Will the engine feel offended if you check it out too much?
If I was a GM powertrain design engineer, I would be sooooo wanting to develop an engine that's basically double this engine. 2.7x2=5.4, so GM could essentially develop a twin turbo dual valloot 5.3 Or 4.8 V8, now THAT would be an awesome engine.
volute*
2020 cars are making my head hurt
Porsche 944 S2 had a 3.0L i4. Love your video always listen to them !! so much good information. thanks.
Thank you! I was just about to mention this.
To be fair he did say in current production - not the largest ever.
International Harvester had a 196 ci. or 3.2L 4 cylinder in their trucks back in the day if you want to go older
4bt cummins, 3.9
The 944s2/968 engine also had dual balance shafts.
Welcome to the 1980’s GM.
For some reason I laughed harder at "I don't know the rules anymore!" than I have in a while.
The 550 cu in caddie was a great truck engine , all 3000 rpm of it .
GM: well we're deep in the pockets on this one... Can't go back now...
drew siff someone high up championed this pig. Should be sacked
Looks like a diagnostic nightmare...
Over complicated, over stressed engine that will not last. Imagine the repair cost! Buy the V8.
Duh!
It'd be awesome if you could bring up reliability. It's cool to hear the new innovations but it'd be awesome to hear the issues they might cause too
Everything about this engine is an issue.....