GM's Competitive Logic Questionable!
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 74
Likes: 22
GM's Competitive Logic Questionable!
So GM is basically trying to tell their customers that their new 2.7L I4 Tripower, GTDI engine is a naturally-aspired base V6 replacement, but their logic is super hard to follow or believe based on how a customer can get that power train.
Logic problem number 1: GM doesn't want their customer to think of their new 4 cylinder turbo, called Tripower to be considered a replacement for a small V8, as Ford does with their 2.7 Ecoboost, but then there is a problem that in reality it is not a base engine for base trucks! Who buys base V6 engines in full-size pickup trucks? Work truck buyers and fleet buyers and people who are the most price conscious and/or not that worried about resale value, performance or supreme refinement; these buyers just want a truck with a cheap initial price that will hopefully last, performs acceptably for light-duty applications, that they can work to death and get decent mpg and so these buyers want "value". That would be the consumers and commercial buyers of a V6 replacement pickup truck; right? But GM doesn't offer this new engine in (a) a regular cab; or (b) the three lowest trims; aka, a work truck or what GM themselves call the "high value" category of their new pickup truck. So they don't offer a value power train (the new 2.7L Tripower) in a value truck. They offer it, instead, as a standard power train in two trim levels: a $38,400 starting-price LT or in the $41,000 starting-price RST. GM 1/2-tons start at around $28K, but the cheapest 2.7L is $38.4K. And those trim-levels come in only double cab or crew cab; so no regular cab can be outfitted with this new engine (they now only offer a long bed regular cab; now short bed; and only in the very lowest trim); and no trim level in that category called "high value" can get this new engine. Those trucks get the old carryover 4.3L V6 as the standard engine, but yet GM is saying this new engine replaces the standard V6. It does replace the standard V6 in the LT and RST, but really, who was buying those more expensive trucks with the base V6 in prior years? I'm not sure, but I think it would have been very, very low. This concept could work feasibly if the new base was more capable, but it's not. If we equate it to Ford, that would be like a new base engine to replace the base 3.3L but only in the XLT SCab, the XLT Screw, the SXT Scab and SXT Screw and not allowing it in the XL or XLT regular cabs. I don't know of anyone who has an XLT or SXT in SCab or Screw with a 3.3L mated to a six speed.
Logic problem number 2: A base engine NA replacement V6, which is a downsized 4 cylinder turbo with lots of fuel-saving technology built in like active fuel management, ought to have superior mpg and superior performance and at least equal capability as the base engine it replaces; it should have superior mpg to a competitive product that is more of a small V8 replacement than their own GTDI engine which is more of a NA V6 replacement; and it certainly should have much better mpg than their own V8. Well; not only does it not beat it's own V6 on the highway (20/23/21 versus 18/24/20); it falls way short of Ford's small V8 replacement by three on the highway (20/26/22); it falls short of Ram's new 3.6L mated to an 8-speed with eTorque standard in all trim levels by 2 (20/25/22); it falls short of Ford's base V6 (20/25/22); and it gets equal highway rating as their own 5.3L V8 with DFM (17/23/19). Then there is the final issue that, although payload is acceptable at around 2,200 maxed out, it's towing number is less than mid-sized trucks at only 7,200, and that's at it's maximum tow configuration where both their own V6 and their competition's V6 beats in in towing.
So what is the benefit of this engine in either of the two trims that it's offered in other than the fact that it's standard in those two trim levels? I don't get their logic or how they can succesfully market it to anyone but stupid people.?
Logic problem number 1: GM doesn't want their customer to think of their new 4 cylinder turbo, called Tripower to be considered a replacement for a small V8, as Ford does with their 2.7 Ecoboost, but then there is a problem that in reality it is not a base engine for base trucks! Who buys base V6 engines in full-size pickup trucks? Work truck buyers and fleet buyers and people who are the most price conscious and/or not that worried about resale value, performance or supreme refinement; these buyers just want a truck with a cheap initial price that will hopefully last, performs acceptably for light-duty applications, that they can work to death and get decent mpg and so these buyers want "value". That would be the consumers and commercial buyers of a V6 replacement pickup truck; right? But GM doesn't offer this new engine in (a) a regular cab; or (b) the three lowest trims; aka, a work truck or what GM themselves call the "high value" category of their new pickup truck. So they don't offer a value power train (the new 2.7L Tripower) in a value truck. They offer it, instead, as a standard power train in two trim levels: a $38,400 starting-price LT or in the $41,000 starting-price RST. GM 1/2-tons start at around $28K, but the cheapest 2.7L is $38.4K. And those trim-levels come in only double cab or crew cab; so no regular cab can be outfitted with this new engine (they now only offer a long bed regular cab; now short bed; and only in the very lowest trim); and no trim level in that category called "high value" can get this new engine. Those trucks get the old carryover 4.3L V6 as the standard engine, but yet GM is saying this new engine replaces the standard V6. It does replace the standard V6 in the LT and RST, but really, who was buying those more expensive trucks with the base V6 in prior years? I'm not sure, but I think it would have been very, very low. This concept could work feasibly if the new base was more capable, but it's not. If we equate it to Ford, that would be like a new base engine to replace the base 3.3L but only in the XLT SCab, the XLT Screw, the SXT Scab and SXT Screw and not allowing it in the XL or XLT regular cabs. I don't know of anyone who has an XLT or SXT in SCab or Screw with a 3.3L mated to a six speed.
Logic problem number 2: A base engine NA replacement V6, which is a downsized 4 cylinder turbo with lots of fuel-saving technology built in like active fuel management, ought to have superior mpg and superior performance and at least equal capability as the base engine it replaces; it should have superior mpg to a competitive product that is more of a small V8 replacement than their own GTDI engine which is more of a NA V6 replacement; and it certainly should have much better mpg than their own V8. Well; not only does it not beat it's own V6 on the highway (20/23/21 versus 18/24/20); it falls way short of Ford's small V8 replacement by three on the highway (20/26/22); it falls short of Ram's new 3.6L mated to an 8-speed with eTorque standard in all trim levels by 2 (20/25/22); it falls short of Ford's base V6 (20/25/22); and it gets equal highway rating as their own 5.3L V8 with DFM (17/23/19). Then there is the final issue that, although payload is acceptable at around 2,200 maxed out, it's towing number is less than mid-sized trucks at only 7,200, and that's at it's maximum tow configuration where both their own V6 and their competition's V6 beats in in towing.
So what is the benefit of this engine in either of the two trims that it's offered in other than the fact that it's standard in those two trim levels? I don't get their logic or how they can succesfully market it to anyone but stupid people.?
Last edited by gregsfc; Nov 3, 2018 at 08:06 AM. Reason: extra characters removed
No fart cans allowed
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,336
Likes: 2,361
From: MO
Makes sense to me. Older tech, already amortized V6 goes in the base trucks. New tech engine goes in the higher trim level trucks. You pay to play.
But you are on an F-150 forum that in my experience has a ton of diehard Ford fanbois who do nothing but deride the competition.
If you aren't in the market for a GM truck, why bother trying to figure their logic out? If you are, do your due diligence, make your informed choice, and live with it. Just like you do with any other truck manufacturer's engine options.
But you are on an F-150 forum that in my experience has a ton of diehard Ford fanbois who do nothing but deride the competition.
If you aren't in the market for a GM truck, why bother trying to figure their logic out? If you are, do your due diligence, make your informed choice, and live with it. Just like you do with any other truck manufacturer's engine options.
5 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 951
Likes: 222
From: Western Washington
You did, but a lot of guys here don't care to discuss anything GM related. They bought a Ford to get away from GM. Go to the chevy forums, and you'll find a lot of guys who bought GM to get away from Ford. That despite the fact that both manufacturers build good trucks, even though they both have their problems. Both Ford and GM have made poor choices in the past and produced crap, and they have both made good choices in the past and produced winners.
In any case, not sure about GM's logic, unless they do intend to replace the base V6 with their new 2.7, but in stages. They're communicating their intended purpose for the motor up front, but at the same time phasing it into their lineup over the course of several years... which is wise. It's easier to work out any issues that way. All manufacturers do the same thing. Ford introduces new engines and transmissions slowly as well.
In any case, not sure about GM's logic, unless they do intend to replace the base V6 with their new 2.7, but in stages. They're communicating their intended purpose for the motor up front, but at the same time phasing it into their lineup over the course of several years... which is wise. It's easier to work out any issues that way. All manufacturers do the same thing. Ford introduces new engines and transmissions slowly as well.
