Quote History Quoted:
Does the block material matter at these power levels?
Does the cooling complexity address a potential problem, or is it needless failure prone tech for no reason?
Is the deactivation via sliding cam finally a good solution over lifter based shenanigans? (yes, better to just not have it)
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History Quoted:Quoted:
The Ford 2.7 is a V6 with a compacted graphite iron block. The GM 2.7 is an I4 with an aluminum block.
The GM engine has cylinder deactivation. The Ford engine does not.
Does the block material matter at these power levels?
Does the cooling complexity address a potential problem, or is it needless failure prone tech for no reason?
Is the deactivation via sliding cam finally a good solution over lifter based shenanigans? (yes, better to just not have it)
Does block construction ever NOT matter?
Ford and GM both still use iron blocks for the V8s they put in their 3/4+ ton trucks despite those engines having lower output relative to displacement. This is done for durability/reliability.
A 2.7L engine in naturally aspirated form makes about what? 200/200 depending upon configuration? These engines are making 310+/400+, and they're being dropped in vehicles with 6,500+ pound GVWRs and 13,000+ pound GCWRs, so they'll be using those increased outputs. I would expect the CGI block in the Ford to have a big advantage in this application.
I think the GM cooling system is designed to help the engine hit ideal operating temperatures faster and to provide improved control over how much coolant flows through which part of the engine independently of RPM. This cooling system can, for example, run balls out while the truck is running low RPMs in traffic on a hot day. I'm sure that's helpful, but generations of engines have done just fine without that capability.
And, as you say, it's simply better to not have cylinder deactivation than it is to have any form of cylinder deactivation.
The biggest question is, why should a consumer choose the GM 2.7?
It only beats the 5.3 by 1.5 MPGs (at $3 a gallon, that's about $150 every 10,000 miles), and it's a little cheaper up front ($1,595), but that price difference gets you the V8 AND the 10 speed transmission.
If you're operating a fleet, you're buying dozens of units, and you're dumping them at 60k miles or whatever, I could see the math favoring the 2.7. The TCO math probably looks good. But for a consumer? The cost doesn't make enough of a difference, and there's too many trade-offs.