2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Delivers Plenty of Powertrain Choices

01-1526583197792-(1)C

As noted in our quick spin reports on the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 equipped with the 2.7-liter turbocharged inline four-cylinder and the technology-packed 5.3-liter naturally aspirated V-8, the new half ton will offer several powertrain choices, including two all-new engines, two updated engines and two carryover engines.

It wasn't that long ago that the half-ton pickup truck class was dominated by V-8 engines, but this is a new world — thanks in large part to Ford's success with the EcoBoost V-6 lineup — that greatly rewards empty-truck fuel efficiency, overall weight savings, and respectable horsepower and torque numbers. The new 2.7-liter I-4, slated to be the volume engine option for the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, hits all three of those marks.

As we noted earlier, Chevrolet is taking a different approach to its trim level and powertrain availability, breaking down an eight-trim lineup into three main categories: high value, made up of the Work Truck (aka WT), Custom and Custom Trail Boss trims; high volume, comprising the heart-of-the-market LT, RST and LT Trail Boss models; and high feature, made up of the premium LTZ and High Country trims.

And as you might expect, each of these Silverado 1500 categories will offer different base and optional engines and transmissions. Here's how that breaks down.

  • WT, Custom and Custom Trail Boss pickups will offer the carryover 4.3-liter V-6 standard with active fuel management; the updated 5.3-liter V-8 with active fuel management will be an option. Both will be offered with the carryover six-speed 6L80 transmission.
  • LT and RST pickups will offer the all-new 2.7-liter turbo I-4 standard, with either the upgraded 5.3-liter V-8 with Dynamic Fuel Management or the all-new 3.0-liter turbo-diesel inline six-cylinder as options. Both the 2.7-liter and 5.3-liter will be paired to the eight-speed 8L90 transmission, while the diesel expected early in 2019 will have the all-new 10-speed 10L80 transmission.
  • LT Trail Boss, LTZ and High Country pickups will offer the 5.3-liter V-8 with DFM standard, with either the 6.2-liter V-8 with DFM or 3.0-liter I-6 diesel as options. The 5.3-liter V-8 DFM will have the eight-speed transmission, while the big V-8 and diesel will have the 10-speed transmission.

2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 Engines

As Chevy rolls out the models — crew-cab V-8s are due to dealers by the third quarter of 2018, followed by regular and double cabs with the I-4 and V-6 engines in the fourth quarter — we'll share more details about the new transmissions and engines. We have learned that the information display screens will not tell drivers which gear the pickup is using at any given moment unless the column shifter is set to manual mode. And even then, as in current GM transmissions, the truck will only downshift from that manually selected gear.

We think Chevy missed an opportunity to help drivers see what gear they're in; it's something we find helpful with the proliferation of eight- and 10-speed boxes. Of course, it's possible that an upgraded towing package could include additional software to allow those who tow or haul bigger bed and tailgate loads to see exactly what gear they're using as they drive. We'll have to wait and see if this changes as we get closer to the reveal of actual production pickups. More to come.

Manufacturer images

 

Comments

@ Alex

TNTrolls argument is the same repetitive bologna day in and day out. It would be comical if it weren’t so childish

I think TNT has lost his mind.


Posted by: Alex | May 23, 2018 11:46:48 AM

That and some......

@ Harvey

First off my statement was Ford doesn't make a V8 to compete with GMs V8....thats what I said.....
Second u spout off and call names, say I have no intelligence, and u get upset and say ecoboost is...
Thats fine....I didn't say that it wasnt...understand the question I asked...so you are the person who is lacking intelligence along with CT, when u can't understand the question.
Its that simple!!
BTW, I did this all without ever calling u a name

As for Alex...... My mind is clear and fresh....look at your fanboys about losing mind bc they can't comprehend!!! Poor guys.

TNT has officially gone into the barrel. Why do you call people fanboys? You are the definition, and it shows in your posts. Again, one day your "man enough" to accept and stop the name calling, but the next today you are "childish enough" to keep doing it. Insults are as bad as name calling or do you not get that either? The bottom of the barrel on what could be a great site is where TNT sits. Sadly, I have seen some good conversations come from you, but once the real TNT shows up it becomes apparent that logic and reasoning goes out the window.

-CT

@ nitro

Where have I named called??

Nitro-uh-er-um, would you please stop posting in my name? I will pull a TNT and call you an idiot.

-CT

again....u keep proving my point....I can't stop laughing that u guys can't understand the question. I have 5 guys here at work that are chuckling!!! And some are ford guys. They admit they don't make V8 that contends.... They do make a TTV6 but thats not what my question was...LMFAO

At the time of this post 106 comments....only 16 worth reading.
WOW

@CT- maybe you should ask TNT, I dont post in others names, I do hear TNT does this alot. There is really only about 6 members on PUTC, the rest are TNT and all the other names he uses....

Push rod V8 engines are now a relic to the past. The future of mainstream large vehicles is turbo charged smaller displacement engines. The line up of engines for the new Sierra will likely include a large turbo V6 or small turbo V8.

@ Nitro

Speak for yourself. I have time and time again told people to post under their own user names.

And you should not make an assessment on something unless you know its a fact.....Something all you Ford guys who have commented on this blog and blown it out of proportion bc you can't comprehend the question that was being asked.

It was a very simple question! I'm still laughing...This is Hilarious!

@TNT- the guys at the "shop"? You mean other fan boys at the so called "shop"? Thats funny right there....

@ Nitro

???....How is that funny??

It must be easy to make you laugh....

BTW..yes we are still laughing, bc you keep posting...

they want to know what Nitro stands for?? Curious we are

again....u keep proving my point....I can't stop laughing that u guys can't understand the question. I have 5 guys here at work that are chuckling!!! And some are ford guys. They admit they don't make V8 that contends.... They do make a TTV6 but thats not what my question was...LMFAO

@ Nitro

I never mentioned the word "shop"?? Again you substitute words in that aren't there! No wonder you have trouble comprehending my question.

BTW. have you found a V8 made by Ford that competes with GM's 6.2L?

@ OLD GM GUY

I don't know many companies that would be willing to put Premium fuel into work trucks, the operating cost of the 6.2 would be higher than any other half ton motor on the market, regardless if the 6.2 gets better MPG on the EPA sticker.

@TNT, you are still talking, that is so funny, it took 3 posts to figure out what I said, the trap worked you really dont read things. I hope your work doesnt do anything productive, because your business must be bad if you are on here all day
Nitro doesnt mean anything, it was my first bassboat, a Nitro is a brand of bassboat made by tracker marine. I now own a Ranger, another brand of bassboat......

TNT, just re-read your last post, not sure what you mean by a V8 that competes with the 6.2l?? I think you have been called out for trying to compare the 6.2 to a turbo v6, that was the real issue. Nobody really cares about V8's anymore, which is why they dont discuss them much. I am not sure if Ford has a comparable v8 to the 6.2l gm since they have a smaller displacement v8, so not sure why you would want to debate that. I only care about diesel because that is what I have, and love my power stroke, 96K miles, no problems.....

@ Nitro

I know exactly what a Nitro bass boat is. My father owns a 2009 Nitro 189 sport! Forest green and white with a 150 merc. Great boat, has had no issues

Glad you have had no issues with your Ford

BTW. You can say you trapped me, but you are not fooling anyone!!! LOL!!


James

My wife left me, my kids don't talk to me, I have no friends
My F-150 Eco-Boost is the only friend I have or it does impress people so I could maybe make friends.
The only time people notice or talk to me when they see me with my F-150 Eco-Boost
Even my co-workers hate me but they respect me cause I own a F-150 Eco-Boost

@ Ecoboost Rules

CLASSIC!! I can't stop laughing. You are one funny cat!

I needed ANOTHER good laugh today!

I don't know many companies that would be willing to put Premium fuel into work trucks, the operating cost of the 6.2 would be higher than any other half ton motor on the market, regardless if the 6.2 gets better MPG on the EPA sticker.
Posted by: Tyler | May 23, 2018

That would be easily addressed in manufacturing by changes in the tuning, timing, etc.

Wow, just wow.......desperation. V6 TT is better then the GM 6.toothlitter

Get your head checked please.

Wow just wow....Furd can't make a V8 to compete with GMs 6.2L V8, so they turbo charge a V6 and falsely put a rumble through the radio to cover up their lawn mower noise coming from exhaust.....who's desperate....


5.0L ( Mustang GT and Bullet ) has more power than the Camaro SS
Posted by: Harvey | May 22, 2018 6:37:33 PM

HAHA 5 more horsepower, but makes 35 lb-ft LESS torque than the 6.2.

And to do it, Ford had to build a 5.0 with 4 times as many cams, 4 times as many cam phasers, twice as many intake and exhaust valves, two huge timing chains, two secondary timing chains, DUAL fuel injection systems, independent intake and exhaust VVT, variable length intake manifold, and 12:1 compression. And it's still physically larger than the 6.2 and it isn't any more fuel efficient. Wow, all that complexity and in the end it doesn't do anything the "old school" 16V pushrod 6.2 LT1 wasn't already doing for the last 4 years now.

-------------------
5.0L truck engine head and shoulders above the 5.3L
Posted by: Harvey | May 22, 2018 6:37:33 PM

It also requires 4 cams, independent intake and exhaust VVT, variable length intake manifold, dual fuel injection systms, and 93 octane to make its rated horsepower and torque (Ford openly admits that all its power ratings are established using 93 octane, even if the engine only requires 87 octane). Not to mention the 5.0's fuel economy only just finally equaled the 5.3's, and that was only because the 5.0 finally got the 10 speed, and it's mounted in a truck that's 500 to 800 lbs lighter. In fact, back in 2015, the 5.0 could barely match a 2015 Silverado 6.2.

----------
5.2L put out more power than the 7.0L LS7
Posted by: Harvey | May 22, 2018 6:37:33 PM

Wow, a totally new 5.2 Voodoo, released in 2015, finally made more than a 10 year old LS7? What an accomplishment!

21 more horsepower is quite a win. Nevermind the fact that the 5.2 Voodoo makes 52 lb-ft LESS torque. Motortrend dyno'd a 2016 GT350 and a 2015 Z/28 LS7. The LS7 put out the same peak horsepower and 62 lb-ft MORE peak torque. Between idle and 3,400 RPM, the LS7 made between 100 and 120 lb-ft MORE torque than the 5.2.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/dyno-battle-gt350-gt350r-and-camaro-z28/

It only took 3 extra cams, twice as many valve, independent intake and exhaust valve timing, a flat plane crank, and 10 years, but Ford finally did it!

----------


"It’s ignorant comments like the above that cement the notion you’re not very bright."
Posted by: Harvey | May 22, 2018 6:37:33 PM

You're doing a good job of that yourself if you don't bother to do some research before making claims.

Funny how it matters to folks that it has 2 turbos or 2 cams, 4 valve.

At the end of the day, who cares how you make your power.

Do we care how you make your money? HELL NO!

This is ridiculous. You people have lost it.

Funny how it matters to folks that it has 2 turbos or 2 cams, 4 valve.

At the end of the day, who cares how you make your power.

Do we care how you make your money? HELL NO!

This is ridiculous. You people have lost it.

Wow just wow....Furd can't make a V8 to compete with GMs 6.2L V8, so they turbo charge a V6 and falsely put a rumble through the radio to cover up their lawn mower noise coming from exhaust.....who's desperate....


Posted by: TNTGMC | May 23, 2018 4:40:40 PM

Ford don't care for the V8, their V6 beats a GM V8.

You're losing it bro, don't matter how power is made, just that it's made.

You're gone bro.

Wow just wow....Furd can't make a V8 to compete with GMs 6.2L V8, so they turbo charge a V6 and falsely put a rumble through the radio to cover up their lawn mower noise coming from exhaust.....who's desperate....


Posted by: TNTGMC | May 23, 2018 4:40:40 PM

Ford don't care for the V8, their V6 beats a GM V8.

You're losing it bro, don't matter how power is made, just that it's made.

You're gone bro.

@ mstangt

No exotic parts of any kind in the 5.2L

That 7.0L needed titanium con rods. And intake valves are of titanium construction while the exhaust valves are sodium filled...

@ mstangt, I mean brick

All those GM engines had better produce more torque. Every single one is of larger displacement.

What’s sad is none make more horsepower than their displacement counterpart.

* smaller displacement counterpart *

No exotic parts of any kind in the 5.2L ...Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018

That's not the way I remember it. Didn't the 5.2 have a 180 degree crank? That's hardly a standard item in Ford V8s

Its no use trying to talk sense into Harvey or Frank...neck there the same! They both get put into their places, they know absolutely nothing, yet still rant on and on......
Both of u just stop...even mstangt is tired of it!

That's not the way I remember it. Didn't the 5.2 have a 180 degree crank? That's hardly a standard item in Ford V8s


Posted by: papajim | May 23, 2018 7:13:17 PM
—————————-

There is nothing exotic about a steel FPC. Every 4cyl on this planet has one.

Titanium on the other hand is an exotic metal. And even with titanium valves, the LS7 burnt them to a crisp.

It’s a public form TNTroll.

“ Both of u just stop “ is not decision to make. So stuff it up your rearend.

@ mstangt, I mean brick

Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018 6:21:27 PM

Haha you think I'm that brick guy? That's a nice theory. The paranoia is starting to get to you man.

------

No exotic parts of any kind in the 5.2L

That 7.0L needed titanium con rods. And intake valves are of titanium construction while the exhaust valves are sodium filled...

Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018 6:21:27 PM

Uh... the 5.2 uses sodium filled exhaust valves. It also has hollow stem intake valves... They also used a plasma arc transfer process to place a deposit of Nikasil on the cylinder bores instead of using a tradition sleeved liner. Oh, and that little flat plane crank that gets all the buzz, complete with a dual mass flywheel to help calm the vibration.

I see where you're trying to go with the whole use of advanced materials thing, but there's a BIG difference between using a titanium connecting rod, and having to use a valvetrain that's far more complicated, with triple the number of moving parts and mass, all for the sake of less displacement and a slightly higher redline. All that valvetrain complexity has been an achilles heel for reliability of blue oval engines for a couple decades. And for what? The relatively simple 16 valve pushrod V8 still outguns the 5.0 Coyote with nearly the same horsepower and a lot more torque, using fewer moving parts and delivering better fuel economy, all while weighing nearly the same and fitting in a smaller spaces. Then there's the massive aftermarket support and inexpensive engine mods available.


------


All those GM engines had better produce more torque. Every single one is of larger displacement.

What’s sad is none make more horsepower than their displacement counterpart.
Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018 6:27:32 PM

Horsepower per liter, other than being a neat number to talk about, is completely useless in the real world. Engineers don't use it to calculate anything important. It doesn't indicate fuel efficiency. It doesn't tell use which engine weighs more or how large an engine's exterior dimensions are. So WHO CARES?

What's sad is that there are so many fools that think that horsepower per liter is some kind of valid tool used to compare engines. Especially when comparing two very different kinds of internal combustion engines, like a pushrod engine and an overhead cam engine. It's no different than comparing the HP/L of a Mazda 1.3L Renesis rotary engine to that of a 2.0L Ford Duratec 20. The Mazda is putting out 178 HP/L while the Duratec only put out 80 HP/L. Ford's Duratec 2.0 must be a big gas guzzling dinosaur, it makes half the power per liter than the Mazda RX-8's Renesis rotary.

Gas guzzling is what the RX-8's Renesis 1.3L rotary does.

Though I did love buzzing mine to 9,000rpm, at which point fuel cut off it, definitely wasn’t a fuel efficient engine.

Lol. And Fords guys said that I lost my mind.. ..u guys definitely need to look at your buddy Harveys posts.....
CT and Nitro. U taking notes. Geez

The 5L is pushing 460/420 in the Mustang GT, what’s makes you think Ford can’t make more HP then GM 6.2L. They don’t need too, why is it the V6 TT does it.

Lol. And Fords guys said that I lost my mind.. ..u guys definitely need to look at your buddy Harveys posts.....
CT and Nitro. U taking notes. Geez


Posted by: TNTGMC | May 23, 2018 8:13:08 PM
————————-

I said PapaJoke lost his mind. You are just ignorant....or did you just admit you’re also PapaJoke???

@ frank and his brother Harvey

Its makes 460 hp and 420tq in the mustang not the truck
The camaro makes 455 hp and 455 tq. 5 hp to mustang, wow!! U are still down 35 tq and thats why the camaro beats the mustang!!! Get educated. We have been through this.

I'm not papajim. I use my own user name like always. Papajim can defend himself bc he obviously knows more about vehicles than u 2 brainiacs combined.

@ TNTroll

Yesterday you and said something about me being from “ down under “ and also claimed I was Frank.

Now you’re saying I’m his brother???

I take it back. Not only are you ignorant. You have also lost your mind.

I don't know many companies that would be willing to put Premium fuel into work trucks, the operating cost of the 6.2 would be higher than any other half ton motor on the market, regardless if the 6.2 gets better MPG on the EPA sticker.
Posted by: Tyler | May 23, 2018

The 6.2 is no more reliant on premium fuel than the 3.5 Ecoboost is. This is one of the MOST ANNOYING and INCORRECT statements I read on this website. Let's set this straight once and for all:

GM says the minimum octane you can run in your 6.2 is 87 octane.
GM says for best performance, you should run 93 octane.

Ford says the minimum octane you can run in your 3.5EB is 87 octane.
Ford says for best performance, you should run 93 octane.

Don't believe me, go read the dam owners manual for both. The state the same exact thing when it comes to octane rating. The guys that think that a stock F-150 3.5EB running 87 octane will make 375 HP and 470 lbft are living in a dream world.

-------------------------------------

@ mstangt, I mean brick

Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018 6:21:27 PM

LOL so first I was accused of being johnny doe, then I'm pretty sure I was accused of being papa jim, now I'm accused of being mstangt. WOW give me a break. It's like you think everyone that drives a truck should think Ford has it all figured out and anyone that disagrees must be just one person posting under two dozen different names. I can't speak for anyone else, but I would be more willing to give Ford props for the things they're doing right if I wasn't busy correcting all the ignorant misinformation about GM trucks and blind Ford fanboyism being posted here.

-------------------------------------

No exotic parts of any kind in the 5.2L ...

Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018

Hmm so if the 12 year old LS7 has sodium filled exhaust valves, it's exotic. If the 5.2 Voodoo has sodium filled exhaust valves, it isn't? Okay? lol

-------------------------------------

Wow, a totally new 5.2 Voodoo, released in 2015, finally made more than a 10 year old LS7? What an accomplishment!

21 more horsepower is quite a win. Nevermind the fact that the 5.2 Voodoo makes 52 lb-ft LESS torque. Motortrend dyno'd a 2016 GT350 and a 2015 Z/28 LS7. The LS7 put out the same peak horsepower and 62 lb-ft MORE peak torque. Between idle and 3,400 RPM, the LS7 made between 100 and 120 lb-ft MORE torque than the 5.2.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/dyno-battle-gt350-gt350r-and-camaro-z28/

It only took 3 extra cams, twice as many valve, independent intake and exhaust valve timing, a flat plane crank, and 10 years, but Ford finally did it!

Posted by: mstangt | May 23, 2018 4:59:38 PM

You took the words right out of my mouth. The LS7 is a very underrated engine that's surrounded by ignorance. It's very telling just how good of an engine it is when it's still being used as a measure of new engines coming out, even 12 years after it first went into production. Most Ford fans see that it has 7 liters of displacement and assume:

"It's a Big Block V8"

"Must weight a ton"

"Yeah but it's a huge 7 liter V8" < That weighs less than a 5.0 Coyote and fits in places a 5.0

"Must be a gas guzzler" < The C6 Z06's LS7 (w/ manual) got EPA estimated 24/15/18 MPG. What did the 2016 Mustang GT350's 5.2 Voodoo get? An EPA estimated 21/14/16. Even the 2016 Camaro 6.2 manual achieved a 25/16/19.

Of course, all these statements are the type that only an ignoramus would assume or believe at face value. The LS7 was a major engine 12 years ago. The fact that it's still being used as a measure of performance all these years later only reinforces the fact that it was and still is a fantastic performance V8, even despite the valve wobble issue on early LS7's.

The 5.2 is a great engine and I have to give respect to Ford for building it. It really sounds great and it's definitely the perfect V8 to set the GT350 apart from the standard GT. I'm glad they finished the engine before Hackett got a chance to cancel it too.

---------------

Gas guzzling is what the RX-8's Renesis 1.3L rotary does.

Though I did love buzzing mine to 9,000rpm, at which point fuel cut off it, definitely wasn’t a fuel efficient engine.


Posted by: Harvey | May 23, 2018 8:09:02 PM


The point mstangt seemed to be making is that all this talk about horsepower per liter (aka specific output) is an absolutely stupid way of comparing performance of two different types of engines. Even though overhead cam and overhead valve engines share a lot of similarities, comparing specific output of two engines with completely different valvetrains is an ignorant way to see how they measure up. Pushrod V8's can be very fuel efficient, make great power for their physical size and weight, are extremely simple (which is excellent for reliability), and the aftermarket support is absolutely HUGE for the LS/LT1. Katech is getting 700 HP and 620 lbft out of an LT1-based 7.0L V8.

Push rod V8 engines are now a relic to the past.

Posted by: frankinFL | May 23, 2018 12:28:39 PM

Yet that "relic to the past" will not only outperform the 2018 F-150 3.5 EB, it'll deliever better fuel economy with the 10-speed and ~400 lb weight loss of the 2019 platform.

The pushrod LT1 6.2 V8 delivers as much HP and more TQ than Coyote 5.0 V8, despite lacking several "modern" valvetrain features. AND it delivers as good or better fuel economy.


Don't see any "relic" there. You're delusional or have been lied to all your life.

TNTGMC

I agree Ford doesn't make a good V8
I say the 5.3 GM V8 is a much better engine than the Ford 5.0
.....but in my opinion the GM 4.3 V6 is even better than the 5.3
.....and the older Ford 5.4 V8 was a better engine than the 5.0

The Ford 5.0 V8 is a car engine not designed to pull a 5000 lb truck where the 5.4 was designed for torque for a truck
(Ford should have kept the 5.4 V8 and improved on it)

The Silverado makes a great engine, brakes and suspension but it suffers from transmission, driveline and serious electrical problems

A 5.0 Coyote with 5.4L of displacement might have been the ideal solution for Ford half-tons. But that would have surely cut 3.5EB sales in half. Now that the Gen 2 Coyote is making some pretty big power numbers, it'll start to get sandbagged in the future too. Does the 5.0 Coyote still force you to settle for the weaker 8.8" axle in the F-150? That would be a major disappointment if so.

FYI
5.2 is the largest displacement for a coyote - the 5.2 has plasma sprayed cylinder liners to get that added piston size.
There are technically 3 axles available in an F150 - 8.8, 9.75 and 9.75HD.
If you order an e-locker you get 9.75 regardless of ratio.
If you order the HD payload package you get 9.75HD
All others 8.8

Whoever said a 5.0 is not designed to pull 5000# is totally incorrect. I pulled a 7000# TT many summers throughout hill and dale in PA - never a problem. The hottest trans temp I had ever seen was eastbound I-80 the long hill before Snowshoe 213F. The engine was singing a 4000 RPM but I always had more pedal. Towing is really not an engine killer. It’s much harder on auto transmissions.

TNT, I'll stay out of this one. Again, I dont really care about the gassers. I will just say they have their advantages and probably all of them could be great engines....

@ nitro

I just wanted u to take note on this convo

U and CT can say I throw insults all the time....I don't come even close to ranting the absurd nonsense and insults Harvey and Frank rant on about....heck in thought they were same, now im thinking their brothers.

@Grnzel

I think the 5.0L is turning out to be a great engine for Ford. So good that they are charging more for it bc they know it will last and its what people who drive trucks want! A strong, capable V8



The comments to this entry are closed.