2027 Colorado/Canyon gets power upgrade

[CaptAngry]

I saw on TFL that the new 2027 Canyon (and I assume Colorado) get some engine upgrades including different turbo, injectors, and pistons to pump the 2.7L up to 350hp and 455lb.ft

Designated the L4B



I was a bit annoyed that Roman said the AT4X/ZR2 and the Rubicon Gladiator were the only midsize trucks with F/R lockers… TFL HAS OWNED A RANGER RAPTOR!

Sponsored

 

[HighDesertRanger]

I stopped watching TFL a while back. It’s all gotten too repetitive.

And I’d still take a Ford 2.3 over that engine.

 

[Lion77]

So, they are taking an already very high strung 2.7L 4 cylinder and pushing it even harder to try and compete against Ford's 2.7L and 3.0L V6's that use CGI blocks built like diesels? I recall a video where they talked about how hard it was to manage the heat in the existing 2.7L Turbo Max....I have a feeling the GM 2.7L's aren't going to hold up, maybe for typical uses, but for more frequent towing, off-roading etc. I forsee issues.

I get why, GM's engine production range doesn't have anything really equivalent to Ford's V6's. They have V8's and Turbo 4's, but not much in between. So, their only solution is to push more from smaller engines which can work to a point, but there is that pesky "diminishing returns" problem!

I suspect this is response to the 2.7L Ranger's beating the pants off in towing compared to the Turbo Max's. Even with the same peak HP, the 2.7L likely has much less knock sensitivity, so it can maintain closer to peak HP and it likely has a much broader torque curve than the 2.7L 4 pot, which is why it's so quick compared to the Turbo Max despite both having similar HP and torque.

AREA UNDER THE CURVE! I'm also highly skeptical as to how frequently the 2.7L can deliver the additional power under real world conditions, we'll see, but I suspect much of the added power is not practically usable, hence why the existing 2.7L Turbo Max typically gets reviewed as "sluggish" even despite its ratings. But who knows, maybe the figured out a way to reduce knock sensitivity?

 

[purdyd]

Competition is good. I’m curious if the ranger in 27 will go to the 3.0l engine like the f150.

and I suppose ford could elect to increase the HP as a response.

 

[surfstar]

F HP, I want MPG.
Toyota blew it by not going for higher MPG with hybrid trucks.

40 MPG in a Maverick made it special. 0-60 was never the reason people bought hybrids.

Give me a mid-size truck with 35 MPG and I'll be fine with a 0-60 time under 10 seconds.

 

[superj]

I also want Gas mileage. Thats why I love my ranger and won't trade out to the 2.0t hybrid jeep my wife and kids have. Thr jeep truck inly comes with the terrible 3.6 v6 and that truck is ugly as a Tesla truck and gets terrible gas mileage.

Those hybrid wranglers are awesome for Gas mileage. Not the 4xe wranglers, the e-torq 2.0t ones. If those were in a truck when I was looking, I probably would have gotten that instead of the new ranger just because I already know the jeep platform so well. But I am very happy with my ranger and won't trade it out, even though the wife and both kids keep on me to do it

 

[landiscarrier]

GM had a very good V6 with the 3.6 then they ditched to try to gain MPG’s.

 

[Intercontinental_Ranger]

F HP, I want MPG.
Toyota blew it by not going for higher MPG with hybrid trucks.

40 MPG in a Maverick made it special. 0-60 was never the reason people bought hybrids.

Give me a mid-size truck with 35 MPG and I'll be fine with a 0-60 time under 10 seconds.

Amen! If they won’t do that they should at least give us the option for a bigger stock fuel tank

 

[stemplar]

Competition is good. I’m curious if the ranger in 27 will go to the 3.0l engine like the f150.

and I suppose ford could elect to increase the HP as a response.

I personally think the 2.7, with its ground-up design focus of being durable and robust, is a better fit for truck use. I’d imagine that 350hp and 455ft/lb torque gives gm the bragging rights, but after towing 6,000 over steep hilly terrain with my 2.7 I can very honestly say that I couldn’t care less. My 2.7 wasn’t working hard, it wasn’t loud, rpm’s were modest on the uphills, and engine braking controlled speeds on the downhills. All that leaves me wanting is durability and reliability, and for those I’ll take ford’s 2.7 and its 10+ year track record over gm’s high-strung 4-banger all day long.

 

[cc1999]

Interesting, I still think GM would be better off to offer something besides just that 4 banger in the Colorado.

I know the F150 and now it seems the Bronco has dropped the 2.7 v6 and replaced it with the 3.0L for 2027.

That recent announced Bronco change has me really curious as to rather the Ranger for 2027 is going to do the same.

 

[HighDesertRanger]

Interesting, I still think GM would be better off to offer something besides just that 4 banger in the Colorado.

I know the F150 and now it seems the Bronco has dropped the 2.7 v6 and replaced it with the 3.0L for 2027.

That recent announced Bronco change has me really curious as to rather the Ranger for 2027 is going to do the same.

I hadn't heard the Bronco announcement. Interesting

 

[emjay24l]

AREA UNDER THE CURVE! I'm also highly skeptical as to how frequently the 2.7L can deliver the additional power under real world conditions, we'll see, but I suspect much of the added power is not practically usable, hence why the existing 2.7L Turbo Max typically gets reviewed as "sluggish" even despite its ratings. But who knows, maybe the figured out a way to reduce knock sensitivity?

I agree. This engine has an unconventional way of delivering power. Also, having such a wide RPM span between peak torque and peak hp seems like it would create issues in real world use cases. Plus, 27 psi of boost at low RPM levels seems to be problematic to me. Just comparing the performance of Ford's 2.7L V6 to GMs 2.7L four cylinder tells me that going with GM's engine is not something I would like.

 

[CaptAngry]

I had an AT4X for 2 years with the original L3B engine. While it has nothing on the 3.0L in the Raptor, it was a potent little engine. It drove and sounded like a small diesel (minus the rattle... but all the turbo woosh). I have never driven a Ranger with the 2.7L or the 2.3L

 

[ColeTrainsRR]

i seriously almost bought a ZR2 simply for the fact it was about $8k less and had ventilated seats and sunroof. 2 things that the Raptor should have had standard for the price tag. The ford drivetrain is superior, no doubt. But the GM Twins have other things that are excellent too.

 

[Stu x 4]

I personally think the 2.7, with its ground-up design focus of being durable and robust, is a better fit for truck use. I’d imagine that 350hp and 455ft/lb torque gives gm the bragging rights, but after towing 6,000 over steep hilly terrain with my 2.7 I can very honestly say that I couldn’t care less. My 2.7 wasn’t working hard, it wasn’t loud, rpm’s were modest on the uphills, and engine braking controlled speeds on the downhills. All that leaves me wanting is durability and reliability, and for those I’ll take ford’s 2.7 and its 10+ year track record over gm’s high-strung 4-banger all day long.

I'm right beside you. Love the 2.7 in the mountains. Zippy uphill and in sport mode for downhill engine break without riding the breaks. With other modes, tranny wants the highest gear.

Sponsored