2023 Chevy Silverado 5.3 0-60 vs. 2022 2.7 turbo vs. 2017 6.2 Which is the fastest?

What’s up guys! This is a 0-60 comparison of the 355HP 23 5.3 Vortec, the 310HP 2022 2.7 Turbo, and the 420HP 17 6.2 Vortec! Keep in mind at 4,000’ of density altitude the V8’s are down about 12-14% HP and the turbo is down about 50% of that! Same road and same day. If these trucks weren’t borrowed of course you could practice and improve the launch, however this is real world testing giving each a decent non abusive launch.
Please like, comment, and SUBSCRIBE if you enjoyed this video!

[@michaelnerychel6727]

These are not Vortec engines. GM has not had the Vortec since the 2013 models. These are the EcoTec3 engines.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Thanks for the correction! At the time of filming my mind was stuck in the vortec/LS world. Not the ecotec/LT world of 13/14+ lol. 😅

[@rubbermaidable]

It's just a name change to make the EPA keep their pants on.

[@Maverick09171]

@@rubbermaidable yeah just a name change and a significant design change 🤦‍♂️

[@rubbermaidable]

@@Maverick09171 So they direct injected it? Did they change the name when they went from spider injectors to multi port in 99? Yeah its got some changes, we all know they're just trying to suck up to the EPA, ecotec, ecoboost, eco diesel, earth dreams, everybody is doing it.

[@Maverick09171]

@@rubbermaidable that and gave it a big boost in compression. The naming isn’t to appease the EPA. They don’t give a shit about the name. The public does however. It’s all in the marketing to shift the perception that trucks, and the respective companies that build them are eco-friendly. I agree it’s stupid, but your blame is misplaced.

[@rayesc0221]

Just got a 2023 2.7 Turbo runs great and gas pedal response is amazing!!

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Congrats, that’s awesome! Glad you’re enjoying it. 🙂

[@kenkaniffify]

Turbos actually negate the altitude power loss a great deal. The loss of air density is essentially cancelled out by the turbo packing in more air under pressure. That's why here in CO, almost everyone has a turbo diesel or turbo gas if they go up over Eisenhower a lot.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Absolutely! NA engines lose 3-3.5% HP for every 1,000’ of density altitude, turbo engines only lose 1/2 what a NA engine lose, so they really do negate the effects. Density Altitude is a combination of true elevation, temperature, humidity, and atmospheric pressure. Where I live the elevation is only 4,000’ but DA can get up to 7,500’ during the summer. I’ve been in a Tesla near that mountain and that was amazing haha. What a difference! Thanks for watching! 🙂

[@Wingnut353]

​@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 half the loss vs the NA is a very pessimistic rule of thumb its actually not as much as that. And should be much less on a modern turbo.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

That may be, but there are many factors at play. It’s not my rule but rather what the research or literature claimed back when I looked into this. I would say after GPS testing over a hundred vehicles since making this video it does seems to be fairly accurate of an assumption compared to what the vehicles claimed times can be. 🤷‍♂️

[@lilchili6836]

My 2020 GMC Sierra elevation with 2.7 liter has been a pretty solid truck. Has plenty of power ( for what I use it for). I've owned almost every brand truck over the years and they were all v8s and I can honestly say I don't feel like I'm losing out on any power by having the 4 cylinder. My only complaint is the gas mileage. It's definitely not even close to mpg it's rated at. Overall it's been a great truck

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I appreciate you sharing your experiences! Glad you’re enjoying it, aside from over optimistic EPA ratings, lol. 🙂

[@thunderbolt5354]

Key words " HAS BEEN " !!!

[@gooxh]

Wait till you hit 75k Mine just exploded from boost up a hill with 5500lb camper

[@revaholic]

Sadly most downsized turbocharged engines will never get claimed fuel economies because manufacturers got good at tuning vehicles to perform well on the EPA. But if you're dipping into the gas it's not going to be much better than a larger engine

[@devn3813]

@@gooxhthe 3.0 is definitely the engine to get. The 2.7 isn’t meant to be worked like that even if they say it is

[@jonboyh2653]

That 2.7 turbo is getting harder to dismiss . people have great things to say about it . I want to try out the new 2023 Colorado now .

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

For sure, I was more impressed than I would have expected driving it! The Colorado is gonna be sweet! I’m sure stock or tune only and they are going to be a hoot. Thanks for watching! 🙂

[@jasonreyna7615]

You can't go wrong with 430lb/tq

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

@@jasonreyna7615absolutely!

[@TheSavage3.6]

mid

[@iGrieFF]

We have a 2.7 silverado for a work truck and it has amazing towing power for such a small motor.

[@Jisstifer83626]

Just bought a 2023 silverado with the 2.7. I was super nervous as i thought that motor was going to be a total turd. I was pleasantly surprised that it never feels like its lacking power, even with the ac going. Im also averaging 24 mpg too!

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I’m glad you’re enjoying it! They’re quite stout, I think my best 0-60 has been the Blue Custom video I did a little while back. It seems many people share a similar concern to yours but end up realizing that maybe this engine is a very good power plant. I’m excited to find some new Colorado’s to drive with it soon. Kinda crazy that the Colorado Trailboss with this motor is only rated around 19-20MPG, so 24 in the full size is great! Thanks for watching. 🙂

[@ericj810]

I like it better then the 4.3. More comfortable tow to.

[@danielbonner8309]

Ive owned one for the last 3 months. Ive went from a 5.7 to a 5.3 to a 4.3 and now the 2.7. So far I love it. I am concerned about longevity like everyone else but I think itll be good. Gm just up the warranty to 100k so they seem to think itll hold up.

[@Resistculturaldecline]

More frequent oil changes remedies a lot of problems.

[@jakes5530]

Super stoked to try out the new 2.7 in the Colorado/Canyon. Should be low 6 seconds 0-60 at sea level

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Absolutely, I can’t wait either! This new gen is the only vehicle I’m currently considering trading my Outback Wilderness for lol. Thanks for watching! 🙂

[@nelsonvanvickle8862]

Lol, my 22’ Canyon with the 3.6l V6 pegs 6.3 seconds 0-60, consistently, at sea level. There’s no good excuse why the new 2.7 shouldn’t be able to propel the same truck to 60 in LESS than 6 seconds. If it doesn’t, and the fuel economy isn’t any better than the previous generation then GM has some explaining to do.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

You have a sweet truck! I think all that low end torque will really help, especially for those of us at altitude lol. 😛

[@Lorde360]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 the outback wilderness sure stands out in the highways. always catches my eye

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I of course have to agree! 🙂

[@jzaroh2004]

Time to throw at least mild forced induction at the V8's as standard. Really will make a difference at altitude.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Amen! Put a big displacement Whipple Supercharger on as standard or a medium sized turbo! GM, the people have spoken! Lol 🙂

[@35RSkyline]

For those that don't understand why he said the 2.7L was only down on power 5 to 7% it is because it is a turbocharged engine. NA engines suffer at higher altitudes

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Correct, thanks for elaborating! NA lose 3-3.5% per 1,000’ of DA, turbo/supercharged lose half of that on average. 🙂

[@BattleForTheHotel]

they are about the same. I like the 2.7, 4 cylinder, because the truck is lighter in the front.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

You’re correct, and great point! I’ve got a few more Silverado reviews to make public today-this week. Including a new 0-60 compilation between a 6.2, 3.0, and 6.6 Duramax because why not? 😉

[@BattleForTheHotel]

Looking forward for those videos. You're the best.

[@mikeriv60]

I think 2.7 is a great base engine. Very nice

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

You’re right. It sounds good and makes great power! I’m excited to see it in this new generation Colorado/Canyon! 🙂

[@edenflorloro3794]

I got the 2023 silverado 2.7 turbo and I already put 7k miles. All I can say is I love it as my daily driver. On thing i hate is the apple car play disconnects and pairing issues happen sometimes.😂

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I’m glad you’re overall enjoying it!

[@Bradimus1]

I'm sure the average turbo on one of these is going to go at least 150k miles. It's not a real worry. Just like it isn't when people are buying diesels. Just change your oil regularly with the right stuff. These even cool themselves after you shut the truck down hot.

[@rickybobby4017]

Don't care how quick that 4 banger is .Gotta have a v8 no matter what. 🤙🤙🤙

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I understand that! Especially coming from Ricky Bobby 😉 thanks for watching!

[@elche1976]

Ricky Bobby is compensating.

[@Resistculturaldecline]

The lords of physics don't care about how many cavities the combustion events are happening in. All it knows is rotational force. The rest is willy nilly manifestations of the human mind.

[@nottoday7495]

The important question is 40-80mph passing speed on a highway or holding a hill on the interstate going 70-80

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Very true! 🙂 My GPS can capture various roll speeds like 40-80MPH. However due to elevation and gearing and all the other attributes of performance it’s likely best for folks to test drive the trucks in their area to get the right one for them. Thanks for watching! 🙂

[@brennan5220]

Just couldn’t have a full size truck with a 4 banger!😢😢😢

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I hear you! It’s a strange concept. But they do drive well (at least unloaded) and owners seem to love them! 🤷‍♂️🙂

[@gooxh]

Love that 5.3 Super reliable

[@brandonmcfarland5200]

That 6.2 Is Keeping It Real It Matched The 2.7L Turbocharged Engine The 2.7L Turbo I4 Engine Needs 390 Horsepower.The 6.2 With A 10 Speed & A 3.42 Axle Ratio Which Is A Max Trailering Package Is My Favorite.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Agreed, the 6.2’s are beasts of an engine! My best friend had one for the past 5 years and it was a lot of fun. 😉 Thanks for watching! More truck stuff to come.

[@brandonmcfarland5200]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 You're Welcome!!!!!!!!

[@drodNY]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 I agree.. my 2020 sierra 1500 denali 6.2 was a beast but it came at a hefty price tag.. and nowhere close to being a daily driver like the 2.7. I switched and haven't looked back. Does all the towing and fun stuff I had the 6.2 doing.

[@ericj810]

I'd like to see the trifecta 2.7 turbo in this run. Even do a 2.7 vs 2.7 trifecta see the results.

[@hooznxt04]

Had a 2023 Sierra with 600 miles on it as a service loaner for a week (120 miles driven) while my 2021 6.2 was being diagnosed for a shudder. They are decent running little engines, I'll give them that. It didn't get any better fuel mileage than my 6.2 and the BIGGEST complaint is I absolutely can't stand that it sounds like my wifes previous 4 Cylinder Terrain. Just me but I don't want my truck sounding like a car......especially if there is no noticeable fuel mileage benefit.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

First of all congrats on owning a 6.2! I appreciate your insight and sharing your experience. The 2.7 Turbo is an interesting option. I think it will do well in this new generation of mid sized truck. Thanks for watching!

[@evanleo7633]

I’m not surprised if the 2.7 has more torque than 6.2 at higher altitudes

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Yeah for sure, pretty crazy that a factory 4 cylinder turbo makes over 400 peak torque! 🙂

[@rafapereira129]

This should be all about torque and why 2.7 turbo should only be bought by people who want to enjoy a powerfull truck for their every day lifes.... but 5he other 2 engines 5.3 and 6.2 are better for work ,they will last forever and dont need boost to keep a good amount of torque in low end rpms ,so i thinknthere would be different applications for each engine...

[@Stephen-wh7vl]

I've got one of those 2.7 liters. It's a little ripper.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

That’s awesome, they definitely are! I’ve driven a few more since filming this first Silverado video on my channel and definitely looking forward to driving some new Colorado/Canyons! 🙂

[@smunger4]

My son has a 2023 Silverado with the 2.7...I drove it and was impressed. I have a Colorado Trail Boss on order with the 2.7...should really rip.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

For sure! Any idea of ETA? 🙂

[@phillipserna5337]

My 2019 5.3 Silverado with a borla pro X’s muffler hit 7.36 seconds 0-60

[@ROBLOXxDUDE99]

bro sounds like he would call these new engines vortecs lol

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Lol. 😅 This was basically the first Silverado video I had done. I have several 0-60 comparisons since then. Calling them Ecotecs and just better videos all around, lol. Thanks for watching! 😂

[@johnredcorn9013]

Beautiful dog

[@TovarEndwy]

The only one you missed is the 3.o duramax.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Correct! I unfortunately didn’t have one available when I made this first compilation. But about a week ago I posted another 3 way with 6.2, 6.6 Duramax, and the 3.0 LZ0. 🙂 Less conventional with the HD truck, but why not? 😉 Thanks for watching!

[@willanderson6715]

My 2.7 liter turbo 2022 refresh is must quicker than my 5.3L. Work loads I'm using my 5.3L but everyday driving and traveling I'm definitely driving the 2.7L turbo.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

That’s awesome! Thanks for sharing your experiences and preferences. I recently remade this video to do it better and include all 4 engine options. The 2.7 was the second fastest!

[@arthursanchez1223]

Any turbo charged engine will eventually need turbo replacement. The question would be that of a factory warranty still in place. Most likely not. V8 or nothing at all.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I think you’re right that it would most likely need replacement past the warranty period. Heat and oil starvation destroys powertrain components. Hopefully this turbo 2.7 is built well enough. I think the V8’s are more proven and obviously have years of history on their side. However, on the forums I read more about 5.3 lifter problems and 6.2 AMF concerns than I hear actual stories of 2.7 failure. But that may just be me. Thanks for watching, and providing insight! 🙂

[@RossMalagarie]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 how long has GM used this 2.7L? How many of those have over 50K miles? Over 100K miles? After we see them in millions of vehicles with over 10yrs of work and over 100K miles then we can get a much better idea of any long term problems

[@CC-qn4ex]

Turbo charged engines in commercial diesel trucks last several hundred thousand miles.... It all depends on the design, construction and quality of the engine being produced...

[@thewireman134]

1985 Chrysler Laser 219k miles original turbo, original engine. No problems. This is a Chrysler product we're talking about here, and it was in 1985..lol. Don't discount a Silverado engine or GM

[@ronniehenson4122]

Were all the test trucks 2WD or 4x4?

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

They were all 4wd! 🙂

[@MeatloafMelvin]

was this the HO 310hp 430tq tune on the 2.7, or one of the lesser tunes?

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Yes I believe it was. 🙂

[@cole7750]

I have a 2023 Colorado with the turbo 2.7 L3b and I want a bigger turbo. Any ideas where to search for a direct fit larger turbo?

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

That’s a good question. I personally haven’t googled what the aftermarket looks like on these turbo trucks, but I’m sure there is one or will be soon! 😎

[@angelgjr1999]

What app did you use?

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Dragy GPS and their app! Thanks for watching. 🙂

[@angelgjr1999]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 thank you

[@robd380]

Was the 2.7 turbo the HO version with 430 lb ft of torque ?

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Yup, 310HP and 430TQ! 🙂 the 2023 Blue Custom 2.7 review I did a few weeks ago was the fastest 2.7 I’ve tested. Granted air/road quality conditions are not always equal between separate days for other reviews.

[@brandondannys-menary3678]

Performance wise I’m impressed with the 4cyl, I’ve heard bad things regarding reliability though

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

For sure! My latest 2.7 Silverado review was the fastest time I’ve gotten 0-60. I hope these are pretty reliable. I personally hear more speculation of reliability issues than actual issues on the forums. Thanks for watching! 🙂

[@smunger4]

Warranties are good

[@sickxwidxit]

0 main issues on the 2.7l right now what ever you're reading is copium from v8 boomers lol

[@roblacerra3257]

@@sickxwidxitexactly what I came to say. This truck is made from all diesel parts, it will outlast the v8s now. The v8s now have no power.

[@joelcrow]

Better power numbers than my 08 & 13 5.3L trucks. Too bad this new one costs so much more than those did new.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Oh yes. Even right before covid with rebates you could get a decent LT 5.3 after rebates for just over 30k, like what? Lol 😢

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Yeah, the last generation was a good time to buy a Chevy lol. I might review a Custom with 2.7 in the next few days to see what the “cheap” Silverado has to offer in 2023, we’ll see. 🙂

[@cocoaberry7498]

I have a ‘22 Silverado lt pre update model, and I’m averaging about 15 mpg. I reached out on one of my facebook groups and realized I’d been driving in 4wd since I got it. Well they walked me through changing it to 2wd, but the mpg hasn’t improved, can someone help me figure out how to increase my mpg? I see most people average anywhere between 24-28 mpg

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Which engine does yours have? I’m glad you got that figured out, and I hope it was auto 4x4 and not true 4x4 😬. Honestly, I’m not surprised one of these big trucks only gets 15MPG better, although I do know some people report higher, and much higher in the 3.0 diesel configuration.

[@cocoaberry7498]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 I have the 2.7 turbo engine, I do have a bit of a heavy foot, so a friend told me I might be driving in turbo too much, but idk how to stop that. I just want to have better mileage !

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I have a turbo Subaru Outback Wilderness, rated at 22/26 and I can sometimes get up to 33mpg highway, while some other owners report low 20’s. It may be a similar situation to your truck where this engine is picky about how you drive and the parameters to it’s driving. For example to get the MPG I do I have to accelerate like a granny, use momentum, keep RPMs low and stay out of turbo boost, and the engine needs to be thoroughly warmed up. I hope my experience can help you, otherwise best of luck! 🙂

[@cocoaberry7498]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 thank you for your help, i really appreciate you!

[@JKZ103]

So the turbo motor had a huge advantage from the DA.... I'd take .25 off the NA trucks for apples to apples.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Correct. The higher the elevation and actually density altitude, the greater advantage to the turbo engine as it loses less power than the NA motor! 🙂

[@nimrodllenes6967]

OK I'm surprised by that 2.7 turbo😮

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Right?? Lol. Check out the 0-60 in the Blue Custom video I did a couple weeks ago, even faster! 🙂

[@jhagen4850]

Good video. I wish there was a way to look at specific fuel consumption via infotainment system so you could integrate the data and determine what I suspect to be true, which is that in everyday driving these 2.7L engines will be in boost so often that you're actually burning the same amount of fuel (or more) as a V6 or V8. Weight savings seem to be marginal, too. Ford has already showed a way better engineering solution to this problem by using their 2.5L naturally aspirated, high compression ration 4 cylinder mated to an electric motor and CVT in the Maverick hybrid. This system could easily be adapted to 4x4 trucks to provide 30MPG and more usable low end torque for daily driving. But....truck buyers clearly aren't the most educated bunch. And if you built a vehicle with less peak torque at 7000RPM but more usable torque at 2000RPM they're probably get the only that has higher torque at 7000RPM even though they'll never rev it that high.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Thank you! Yeah, that information would be interesting to know. But I’ll mention, living at some altitude and turbo/supercharged engines only losing .50% the same loss a NA engine would lose is also a thought to keep in mind. 🤷‍♂️ Although, I’ve personally not noticed much MPG lose at altitude, especially if the vehicle does make easy low RPM torque. It seems to be max efforts that are lost where the max threshold is lower (like an athlete at altitude), not the low end stuff as many engines have good reserve. Those Mavericks are cool, I’ve seen tuned ones run in the 13’s, which is amusing lol. Low end torque is so much more useful than high RPM HP unless you’re a track car like the new Z06 lol. Thanks for watching and sharing your knowledge! 🙂

[@HazardousRob]

Why didnt you do the 3.0 diesel

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I just didn’t have one available on the day I decided to compile these other trucks. I did another compilation with the new LZO 3.0 a couple months ago, comparing it to a 6.2 ecotec and a 6.6 Duramax, lol. I’m sure I’ll do more of these type of comparisons in the future. Thanks for watching! 🙂

[@Christdeliverme]

Not to mention them 2.7 has two less gears

[@Pabloperes675]

You ran the 4 banger in auto

[@Pabloperes675]

Awd

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Must not have caught that or switched the settings between the runs. Good catch! I didn’t post it but I did a light 4wd launch in the 5.3 and it ran similar time to RWD. Better on take off but then loses power top end to the transfer case when it no longer needs traction help. Overall I’m very impressed with the 2.7, at altitude it runs closer to the older 6.2 than the same gen 5.3. 😎

[@Pabloperes675]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 yeah the 2.7 is a rocket bro, and sounds like one too in person. Video doesn’t do it justice.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

@@Pabloperes675 you’re right, the engine sounds great in person and launches surprisingly well for a big truck! 😎

[@thunderbolt5354]

@@Pabloperes675 Ya needs to have Your ears Checked Son the 4 banger sounds like a Kids Beat up Honda Civic !

I’d like to see if the 2.7 was offered with the 10 speed, what it could do.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Absolutely!

[@stroln]

please shorted the entro. Thanks for the video.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

You got it, this was one of my first vids. I’ll do another one soon! 🙂

[@TurboK24z]

The 5.3 guys are straight lying to themselves with all those common lifter failures 😂 it's called Buyers Remorse/Shame. Just traded my 2017 Sierra 5.3 for the Refreshed Sierra 2.7. Will not miss the clunky v8.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I’m not surprised you like the 2.7 with a user name like turbo K24 (nice! Lol). I have a couple more new Silverado videos to post including a 0-60 of all 4 engines for 2024. The 5.3 got last place… 😅

[@TurboK24z]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 nice, looking forward to it. If possible a drag race between the engines. If you can find another driver.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

That would be fun, I wish I had a better system up to do drag racing, hopefully one day! I made public the new version of this video this morning, hope it’s helpful to you! 🙂

[@lucasl4376]

Not Vortec. If you did research you would know that. In fact you’re 10 years late bud.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Haha, I know I know old habits die hard. It’s been said in other comments as well. I’ve corrected it in my additional more recent GM V8 reviews. 🙂

[@devinvaughn2377]

These tests are not accurately comparing the engines. The 6.2 is in a 2017 model witch is a majority steel body (heavier truck) and also has a 8 speed transmission. The 5.3 and 2.7 are in 2022 models that are mostly aluminum and have 10 speed transmissions. There HUGE differences in weight and ratios here a better comparison would be to get a 6.2 in the same year as the others and the outcome would be way different.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Correct in that the 2017 6.2 is obviously the odd duck out lol. But that is what I had to work with that day. Had the tests been filmed on separate days or not all within 30 minutes of each other they also would have not been accurate as density altitude could vary by 1-2,000’ or 3-7% horsepower even. Likely a similar difference to the tranny/ratios you’ve identified. Very difficult to have a series of test like this without decent variables lol. Thanks for watching and adding your insight! 🙂

[@rubbermaidable]

The 2.7 has an 8 speed.

[@devinvaughn2377]

​@@rubbermaidable the 2.7 I had has a 10 speed

[@rubbermaidable]

@@devinvaughn2377 No it does not. It has an 8 speed.

[@mordeth1964]

And then along came a 3.5 Ecoboost..😢

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I drove one a while back and in my area it did like a 5.5 true time. 🥴

[@metalmaniac0215]

You didn't use sport mode guy, so your test wasn't accurate🙄

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Lol, my bad. It was kinda a spur of the moment video, and one of my very first. I’ve done more Silverado acceleration tests since, but I’ll remake a video like this (in sport mode) soon! 😉

[@tommays56]

I find my 2019 5.3 can shred to much tire for my budget 🎉

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Haha nice problem to have. Modern trucks sure are fun. 🙂 thanks for supporting the channel!

[@Bronco2Cj]

@@AutomotiveAnonymous208 I just bought the 2.7 4 beater back in may.. been impressed with it.. A. Have you towed with that one yet? B. your test on the 2.7, what size tires are equipped?

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

@@Bronco2Cjfirst off, congrats on your truck, they’re sweet! Second, I was just borrowing the trucks for review, I don’t personally tow 🙁 as far as the tire size it was the standard set up on a 2022 2.7L LT trim. Sorry I couldn’t provide you with more specific information from this test.

[@sswcubes]

5.3 should be discontinued.

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

It will be interesting to see which new gen V8’s they design going forward at the new plant that has been announced!

[@dennisvilla24]

No turbo.

[@HJA-de1nu]

Bro these are not vortecs 😭😭😭

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Lol, wasn’t long ago they were though. I’ve done like a half dozen Silverado reviews and 0-60 videos since this first one with the Ecotec correction made. 🙂🤷‍♂️

[@justinh1258]

2.7>>>5.3

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

Agreed! Assuming they’re equally reliable and will stay stock! 🙂

[@samsquires2877]

2.7 is garbage. I’d take 5.3 any day over that thing.

[@justinh1258]

@@samsquires2877 5.3 sucks I’ve owned 3, enjoy getting walked by a 4 cyl in your no balls 5.3

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

@@samsquires2877 fair opinion 🙂each has different advantages and disadvantages for sure. The 5.3’s are very bulletproof, have great modifications potential, and reliable towing. But I will say the turbo sounds great, does better at altitude, and has an interestingly fun power curve. I just don’t know I would buy it for long term reliable ownership.

[@robertsn6584]

@@samsquires2877 hy is the 2.7 garbage btw ??? Based on what

[@MikeJones-bi3zl]

See which one is still running at 150k it won’t be the 4cyl

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

I hope they all are still running or there might be a bunch of upset GM owners, lol. 😉

[@63DW89A]

The little turbo 4's are going to outlast the bigger V8's. Ran a 2.3L Ford Ranger from Knoxville, TN to Reno, NV along I-80 and ran back to Knoxville on US-50/US-60 last week. At 65-80 MPH that torquey little turbo 4 stayed around 1600-2000 RPM practically the entire trip. On US-50 going over the Rockies at 11,300+ ft, the Ranger 2.3L 4 cylinder left the V8's behind on long uphill climbs. The V8's were running at higher RPM groaning on those steep uphill climbs at 8-11,000+ ft. That little 2.3L turbo 4 was loafing at low RPM in 10th gear the entire trip, never dropped a gear running at 65-80 MPH on long 6% upgrades, and did not even break a sweat!

[@chada472]

The GM, Ram and toyota trucks are so slow compared to the Fords!

[@AutomotiveAnonymous208]

The Ecoboosts are very impressive at altitude!