Trucks
continue to get bigger – what buyers seem to want – while their engines get
smaller, which is effectively a function of what the government demands,
as the downsizing of engines is one of the ways for the car companies to reduce
the fuel consumption of the vehicles so equipped.
Which
they have to do – not because buyers of trucks (or even most cars) are
demanding fuel economy uber alles but because the government refuses to accept
that lots of buyers care about other things uber alles. So the
government mandates the fuel economy they’re not particularly interested
in, in order to force buyers to be more “efficient” – no matter
what it costs them.
And
the car companies try to figure a way to make those smaller, more “efficient”
engines perform at a level acceptable to buyers.
Enter
the 2019 Chevy Silverado 1500 – the leading edge of this strange,
increasingly desperate dynamic. It will be the first full-size truck to come
standard with a four cylinder engine – comparable in size (2.7 liters) to the
engines that power mid-sized cars that weigh 1,000-plus pounds less and which
aren’t tasked with towing thousands of pounds.
The
little engine replaces the 4.3 liter V6 that is the current Silverado’s
standard engine and makes up for its lack of displacement via heavy
turbocharging – which adds power-on-demand but also adds parts and internal
stress as well as costs, both up front and down the road.
Probably
just after the warranty expires.
As
opposed to the 4.3 V6, which doesn’t need a turbo to make power and is a much
simpler, lower-maintenance design. It is basically a Chevy
small-block V8 less two cylinders. It shares the famous – and famously simple –
layout that made its debut back in 1955. A very proven – and very durable –
design.
One
camshaft, not mounted over the heads. Two valves in those heads.
A timing chain that never needs to be replaced instead of a belt that
periodically does. And, of course, no turbo. So, no worries about having to
replace a turbo after the warranty runs out. Ever.
Not
even after 250,000 miles. Regular vs. premium unleaded fuel.
The
2.7 liter engine is turbocharged and intercooled and double
overhead cammed, with twice as many valves in its head. It makes 310 hp vs. 285
hp for the force-retired V6, but it takes 22 pounds of boost (and
premium unleaded) to do it. That is a lot of pressure on an engine. Maybe it
will hold up. Maybe not.
If
not, who gets the bill?
A
replacement turbo will generally cost you $800-$1,500 in parts and labor. How
much gas did you save, again?
Naturally,
the car press doesn’t mention any of that – nor that the fuel economy gains
will probably be trivial vs. the simpler, lower-cost 4.3 liter V6 and not
sufficient to offset the higher cost of the turbo’d engine as well as the
higher cost of maintaining and repairing it.
That
has been true so far, at least.
Consider the
3.5 liter twin-turbo V6 Ford puts into the Silverado’s cross-street rival, the
F-150 pick-up, as the “fuel saving” alternative to the 5.0 liter V8 (which is
still available, for now – but no longer the F-truck’s top engine).
The
“EcoBoost” 3.5 V6 carries an EPA rating of 17 city, 23 highway – vs. 16 city,
22 highway for the same truck with the V8 but no twin-turbos.
You
get 1 mile more per gallon . . . on the EPA’s test loop.
Even
in a best-case scenario, the “efficiency” gain is unnoticeable – from the buyer’s
perspective. What’s the advantage, then, for the buyer? It’s true the
turbo’d engine makes more torque (and lower in the RPM range) than engines not
turbo’d, but in that case why not turbocharge the bigger engine – and get even more
torque?
Because,
of course, it’s not torque or anything that most buyers care about that’s the
object of this exercise – which is to eke out small MPG gains on an
individual-vehicle basis that factor and become very important – to the
government – on a fleet average basis. Your small-engined truck may not give you
a noticeable MPG uptick, but that 1 MPG uptick on the EPA’s test loop times all
the trucks just like yours that Ford or Chevy or whoever builds is noticeable
when the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) figures are calculated.
And
that’s what’s driving this madness.
A
small turbo four in place of a V6 – or a small turbo V6 in place of a V8 –
improves the car company’s CAFE numbers, helps them dodge fines for
“non-compliance.” Naturally, the costs of compliance are passed on to you, in
the form of a more complex, expensive vehicle. One that also probably needs
premium unleaded to deliver its fractional MPG gains, too.
The
car companies paper that over by trying to get you – the buyer – to focus on
the increased power/torque the turbo’d engine makes – and that is certainly
true. But again the question arises – why not just make a more powerful and
simpler, less-expensive-to-build and keep up V6 or V8 in that case, if more
power is desired? Especially given the trivial “efficiency” gains achieved
by going with the smaller, more technically complex, expensive and stressed
engine?
Those
“efficiency” gains by the way, are often a loss – in real world driving.
In
the real world, a small but turbo’d-to-make-up-for-it engine uses more gas than
the larger, not turbo’d engine because it’s necessary to force-feed the
small engine to make it temporarily swell with the power of the larger engine.
Because the engine is small and off-boost, makes small power, the driver
is usually calling up the boost (via his right foot) to make up for that
smallness, keeping the engine perpetually swelling with turbo-boosted
power and using the fuel necessary to support that.
No
free lunches.
Ask
anyone who has actually driven these things – like me, for example. If you
Faberge Egg-under-the-accelerator pedal then yes, you might squeeze out a
slightly noticeable MPG advantage vs. the larger engine without the turbo. But
who drives that way? More to the point, why would anyone drive that way.
What would be the point, in a truck?
Which
isn’t a Prius.
The
whole thing is incongruous and more-than-slightly batty – like dieting by
eating two Bic Macs and a small diet Coke.
But
the car companies peddle these littler turbo’d engines over slightly less
“efficient” – but more appropriate – larger engines because it appeases the
federal Ayatollahs issuing the fuel efficiency fatwas and the buyer be
damned – to bowdlerize what J.P. Morgan is supposed to have said once about the
public.
The
2.7 turbo four is an impressive piece of engineering, no question. So is the
Tesla. So is the Great Pyramid of Cheops.
But
that’s not the point. In a truck, at least, the point is – or used to be
– simplicity, ruggedness, longevity and keeping the cost of buying and running
the thing down.
If
it used a bit more fuel, so be it – and so what.
The
federal ayatollahs be damned.
. .
.
Got
a question about cars – or anything else? Click on the “ask
Eric” link and send ’em in!
If you
like what you’ve found here, please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend
on you to keep the wheels turning!
If
you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
