How do you feel, psychologically, about the 4-cylinder in the Silverados?

[vandelay industries]

How do you feel, psychologically, about the 4 cylinders, both gas and diesel, in the new Silverados?

i can't quite wrap my head around it----it just doesn't feel "right" to me in a fullsize truck. i think it would be more suitable, even appropriate, in an S-10, colorado etc.

On the other hand:

a) Power-wise, they seem adequate; The common notion these days, is if you were to test drive one without anyone telling you that the truck WAS equipped with a 4-cyl.....

b) Vast majority of tractor-trailers you see on the highway have turbo straight 6's in them. Of course, the difference here is that they are 850+ cubic inches. If the 4's in the silverados were large cube, then maybe i could accept it better.

Rebuttal to the other hand:

a) The 4.3 still has a higher towing capacity than the gas 4. So maybe the turbo 4 is NOT the answer....

b) Even the 6 in the colorado has a higher towing capacity than the gas 4 in the silverado. And this isn't even a 4.3. It's a 3.6 "high feature" v-6.

 

[runamok151]

I could care less about the # of cylinders or CIs. You have a lot more useable hp & tq with the current designs than we did 20 years ago thanks to modern fuel management and 8 speed transmissions. The modern diesels are ridiculously strong and current 1/2 tons will blow away a 20 year old 1 ton. The average person doesn't need that much power to tow the occasional utility trailer loaded w/ a mower or 20' bow rider. I'd rather have a more modest truck that gets me 30 mpg. I'd take a diesel Colorado over any Silverado any day.

 

[campfire]

How do you feel, psychologically, about the 4 cylinders, both gas and diesel, in the new Silverados?

I feel that they're 30 years overdue. It's about time that 'normal' light-duty truck users have a suitable option. Most people never tow anything and rarely haul even 500 pounds. This leads to a lot of trucks being wasted doing duties more suitable for minivans or small cars.

 

[diesel4me]

Inline engines run smoother,have more low end torque and last longer than a V configuration engine--their main drawbacks are they aren't very fuel efficient when one is made with enough displacement to do the job required of it,under a load they get thirsty ,and the longer stroke engines are the ones that will get the worst mileage..

They have only added fuel injection to a few straight sixes in American vehicles,notably the Ford 300,and Jeep 4.0's...inline sixes suffered from poor fuel distribution in carbed form,the end cylinders ran leaner and hotter,while the center cylinders ran rich..this made them unable to pass emissions,and in some engines ,pistons and valves would burn eventually in the leaner cylinders..

But straight sixes have a "bullet proof" reputation,they do hold up pretty well--taxi companies here always preferred them,most all of their cars had straight sixes,even big tanks like old '71 Impalas,and they would rack up 200,000 miles a year on them and many went to a million miles before needing an overhaul..the slant sixes were the engines they wanted in Mopars too,those held up good under daily abuse..
Think of a straight six as a more "industrial duty" engine than typical V6's or V8's..

Personally I like straight sixes,they are pretty durable and sufficient to do most chores required ,but I wont argue a small V8 is more efficient and will propel a vehicle at highway speeds more readily that a straight six..most sixes do not have enough cubic inch displacement to be good for highway speeds ,towing,and climbing steep grades..

GM tried making a "modern" straight six in the Trailblazers and Dunali's ,but they didn't seem to pan out well,despite then being powerful and make enough torque ,but their longevity did not seem to be there..not like the older ones..

I think a 4 banger in a full sized pickup would be a dog,unless it has large enough bore and a long stroke to provide enough torque & HP,and a turbo or blower would help a lot,but likely shorten its service life quite a bit..to me a small engine struggling all the time will not be the ideal setup,it'll get poor fuel economy and wear out faster that a larger engine that gets to "loaf" along more..

If your only hauling 500 lbs like most pickup owners,a smaller pickup like an S-10 or Ranger,is a better overall choice if you want decent fuel economy and performance from a 4 cylinder engine..most folks do not even need a 1/2 ton truck...

 

[Big Ray]

It just sounds wrong. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it just feels wrong.

 

[ZooMad75]

Had one come of the transport for a fleet courtesy delivery the week before last. My tech didn't notice it was a 4 banger until he lifted the hood. But he didn't drive it any further than from our lot into the shop. Based on our location I'm pretty sure we won't be ordering any 4cyl Silverados for stock on the lot. But then again we don't order any with the 4.3 for the same reasons. Our market is at the base of the mountains. Most that do buy a half ton do tow with them. From utility trailers, boats and campers. The problem is when they head west. Elevation gains pretty quickly. Which if you were pulling with one of the 4 cyl trucks it would bring the suck going up a steep grade.

 

[ChrisPerry]

With the new 8-10 speed autos the need for a lot of low end torque isn't as important. It won't lug up a 7° grade at 2500 rpm pulling 10k, but it probably will do it turning 6 grand.

That being said, I still like V8's. 4 bangers don't have the right sound.

 

[beags86]

Who cares how I feel about it. It's the way of the future. I'll back up what Ethan said. We are overdue. Probably not 30 years, but overdue none the less. And at the end of the day is about the numbers, if they deliver the numbers who cares how it's made. My wife's car is the current gen Impala with the 305hp 3.6 v6. More then sufficient to pull the car around. It's actually quite fast. Imagine what people would have thought if that engine came out in 1964. 305 hp from a v6!?!?
And it probably wouldn't have sold.
But in today's world, who cares how it's made, we need to be open minded about tech.
While I don't necessarily believe in global warming, I do believe we need to be better about emissions.
With all that said. Am going to trade my 454 for Turbo 4? Probably not any time soon...

 

[ZooMad75]

Who cares how I feel about it. It's the way of the future. I'll back up what Ethan said. We are overdue. Probably not 30 years, but overdue none the less. And at the end of the day is about the numbers, if they deliver the numbers who cares how it's made. My wife's car is the current gen Impala with the 305hp 3.6 v6. More then sufficient to pull the car around. It's actually quite fast. Imagine what people would have thought if that engine came out in 1964. 305 hp from a v6!?!?
And it probably wouldn't have sold.
But in today's world, who cares how it's made, we need to be open minded about tech.
While I don't necessarily believe in global warming, I do believe we need to be better about emissions.
With all that said. Am going to trade my 454 for Turbo 4? Probably not any time soon...

I'm not against the tech. But it's just not the right tool for the job around here. Flat landers and those at lower elevations it probably would be a fine option. You are right now the high feature DI 3.6 V6 is an amazing engine for the power it makes. Might be a reason it's offered in such a wide variety of vehicles from GM. In a Camaro they will light the tires up quite well. It does have more HP than previous generation V8 powered Camaros and Mustangs.

That same tech that makes the 3.6 so good is what is in the new gen 5 small blocks, direct injection and variable cam timing really do amazing things to keep the HP and still have better fuel economy than the previous generation.

 

[obijuank5]

It's made for a particular duty and it's about time. We have an f150 in the family that has 280k on it. Never had a trailer or more than a couple square bales in the bed.
The truck is used for work for mobile wound care and patient visits. So it's four doors full of medical supplies. Then after work it might go to the feed store or something. That's the perfect scenario for a fuel efficient full size.
The cattle get pulled with a dodge, and the runaround town farm truck is a ford ranger. I know we would love a fullsize ranger.

 

[trukman1]

Inline engines run smoother,have more low end torque and last longer than a V configuration engine--their main drawbacks are they aren't very fuel efficient when one is made with enough displacement to do the job required of it,under a load they get thirsty ,and the longer stroke engines are the ones that will get the worst mileage..

If your only hauling 500 lbs like most pickup owners,a smaller pickup like an S-10 or Ranger,is a better overall choice if you want decent fuel economy and performance from a 4 cylinder engine..most folks do not even need a 1/2 ton truck...

I agree. Most people driving trucks today only do so because it's the "popular" vehicle to drive even though they'd be better served with a regular car or SUV.

I remember when gas prices skyrocketed and people were trading their trucks for cars "en mass (sp?)." Just, to me, drives up the cost of trucks for people who really NEED a truck.Wait and see what happens if gas prices soar again. Trucks will fall from popularity FAST and prices will plummet, especially on used vehicles.

Back when gas prices skyrocketed my buddy traded a beat up S10 4.3L for a nice, newer full sized V8 4x4! (And it'll probably happen again some day.)

 

[b454rat]

A 4 banger in a full size?!? Not that I care but never heard of it. Granted technology has come a long way, but I think it's assinine. But, many people including me, just want a truck. Doesn't make any sense to get a full size truck with a "huge" V-8, and don't mean a 6.0 liter, for just driving back and forth to work, or getting groceries. My old car was I think a 2.0 liter that made 400 horse/torque to the wheels. But that wasn't stock. Had a bigger turbo, injectors, blah, blah, but would absolutely suck in a truck. Power band was similar to a light switch, either was making power or it wasn't. That motor was direct injection, good tune, maybe with a many speed tranny possibly would work in a truck, but I dunno, 4 cylinder in a full size?? And not a 4BT?

 

[diesel4me]

GM also has "cylinder deactivation" on these new 4 cylinder truck engines!..I'd like to see one maintain 65 mph up a slight grade on two cylinders....and what happens to the "deactivated" cylinders--do they just add a burden to the other two doing all the work,throwing the balance off,etc ?..

A female neighbor bought a 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 "super cab" 4 door pickup recently..it has a V6 "Eco-Boost" engine and a ten speed automatic..and a bed about 5 feet long!..but the cab is sort of like a 4 door crew cab,so lots of passenger room,but the dinky bed wont even haul a fridge or a round hay bale,or a riding mower..it isn't a "truck" in my eyes...and I bet it costed 50+ grand...

Also it never gets driven anywhere but to her job and home basically..must be nice to be able to afford a vehicle you don't really "need"..she traded in a mint 2006 Ford F150 4x4 with a 351 V8 with less than 65K on it too,that would have outlived her,they gave 7 grand trade in value for it....that truck was a truck,it had an extended cab and a 8 foot bed..

 

[urbex]

If new trucks weren't 40 grand, I'd pick one up in a heart beat. I don't want a Ranger/S-10/Colorado/other small truck. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "need", and everything to do with "want". People getting their panties in a wad over what they think other people "need" vs what they buy/drive need to find a short pier to take a long walk down...I own 9 vehicles right now, plus a camper and a boat. All mine, all fully paid for, and all for me. Different vehicles for different uses. Do I "need" all of them? Nope. I wanted them, plain and simple. Could I "make do" with less? Sure. I could easily run with 2 of them - the Samurai and the F350...didn't want to. Bite me.

Small cars/trucks are small inside too, and I don't want to feel like I'm driving a phone booth. When I bought my Caddy, I specifically went for the STS because it was larger than the CTS. As a commuter car, I didn't "need" anything beyond an Aveo. But I wanted something more comfortable for the approx 150 miles a day I put in, and something more sporty. If Caddy would have made the DTS on the more sporty Sigma platform with the higher performance Northstar, I would have bought one of those instead. I'm still a bit miffed that Caddy didn't put the LS motors into the STS-V, and would have loved a DTS-V with the LS.

But a nice, new, comfortable, full size that gets decent MPGs that I could use for commuting, and light weight parts chasing? Heck yes. I couldn't care less what it sounds like, because I shouldn't be hearing the engine anyways. I couldn't care less if it doesn't haul a hay bale or anything else, or what other people consider it to be. I'd also love to have an extended cab, short short bed truck. Whatever those 4-5 footers are called. Why the hell would I want to be driving a monster truck through city traffic and tight parking garages when I'm commuting or grocery shopping with it? Just to impress a bunch of strangers I don't care about?

 

[beags86]

GM also has "cylinder deactivation" on these new 4 cylinder truck engines!..I'd like to see one maintain 65 mph up a slight grade on two cylinders....and what happens to the "deactivated" cylinders--do they just add a burden to the other two doing all the work,throwing the balance off,etc ?..

A female neighbor bought a 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 "super cab" 4 door pickup recently..it has a V6 "Eco-Boost" engine and a ten speed automatic..and a bed about 5 feet long!..but the cab is sort of like a 4 door crew cab,so lots of passenger room,but the dinky bed wont even haul a fridge or a round hay bale,or a riding mower..it isn't a "truck" in my eyes...and I bet it costed 50+ grand...

Also it never gets driven anywhere but to her job and home basically..must be nice to be able to afford a vehicle you don't really "need"..she traded in a mint 2006 Ford F150 4x4 with a 351 V8 with less than 65K on it too,that would have outlived her,they gave 7 grand trade in value for it....that truck was a truck,it had an extended cab and a 8 foot bed..

Bob, they haven't put 351s in trucks since 1996.....

 

[diesel4me]

The label under the hood stated "5.4 liters" so I assumed it was a 351..
OK,it was a Triton V8,I was wrong......sue me !..

 

[MTBLAZER89]

GM also has "cylinder deactivation" on these new 4 cylinder truck engines!..I'd like to see one maintain 65 mph up a slight grade on two cylinders....and what happens to the "deactivated" cylinders--do they just add a burden to the other two doing all the work,throwing the balance off,etc ?..

You would be surprised. My 2018 Sierra will pull my travel trailer in 4cyl mode up to 40-50 MPH. It stays in a lower gear and revs a little bit. The 8 and 10 speed autos really are where the magic happens.

A female neighbor bought a 2019 Ford F-150 4x4 "super cab" 4 door pickup recently..it has a V6 "Eco-Boost" engine and a ten speed automatic..and a bed about 5 feet long!..but the cab is sort of like a 4 door crew cab,so lots of passenger room,but the dinky bed wont even haul a fridge or a round hay bale,or a riding mower..it isn't a "truck" in my eyes...and I bet it costed 50+ grand...

Yeah but ya gotta remember "most" are using these trucks to tow vs haul stuff in the bed.. Those new 3.5 EB rigs tow 10k without breaking a sweat.

 

[diesel4me]

I still think it was a waste of money,and a nice truck,to just be used to commute a few miles a day---but it's not my money,so I dont really care...the owner hates the feature that shuts off the engine at every stop,she learned how to defeat it the first day she owned it..

Now that is one stupid feature,IMO..starter would last maybe a month in heavy city traffic..cant do the engine any justice shutting it off and having the oil pressure drop to zero,then re-start, hundreds of times..

 

[beags86]

The label under the hood stated "5.4 liters" so I assumed it was a 351..
OK,it was a Triton V8,I was wrong......sue me !..

351s had 5.8 casted in the upper intake manifold. 5.4 was a mod motor.

 

[urbex]

Now that is one stupid feature,IMO..starter would last maybe a month in heavy city traffic..cant do the engine any justice shutting it off and having the oil pressure drop to zero,then re-start, hundreds of times..

These engines aren't using the traditional bendix style starter, rather something that is designed specifically for this type of application. Some vehicles don't use the starter at all for the stop/go operation, instead opting for combustion starting - injecting fuel into a cylinder and igniting it to get the engine spinning. There are also different types of bearings being used to handle the additional wear, and keep in mind - it's the COLD starts that are hard on a motor. These hot restarts already has hot oil circulated through the engine, and it's typically only down for a minute or two.