“That thing got a 350 in it?” is a question I’d often hear when driving my beloved 1989 Chevy K1500 — a truck I sometimes regret selling because it was, by far, the best truck I’ve ever owned. But with the new millennium, the beloved 350 left the Silverado and was replaced with another icon: the 5.3-liter small-block V8. This became the standard for the last quarter century, but now it’s gone and the 350 is back. Joining those cubic inches is a fresh new face, a new interior with a big passenger-side screen, and so much more. Let’s have a look at the new 2027 Chevrolet Silverado 1500.
Upon hearing that the 2027 Chevy Silverado is ditching the 5.3-liter and 6.2-liter V8, my first thought was “Wow, that 5.3-liter has been around a while!” And so my initial headline was “The 2027 Chevy Silverado Ditches Its 5.3L V8 After 27 Years.” But then I saw what that 5.3-liter is being replaced by — a 5.7-liter (350 cubic-inch) V8 — and I decided it was best to celebrate the return of the most iconic Chevy truck engine displacement than to lament the 5.3-liter’s passing.
To be sure, this is obviously not the same 350 as my GM400’s TBI 350, but it’s still a cool throwback that Chevrolet says on its press release “honors Chevy Small Block heritage.” The 350 is joined by a 6.6-liter replacing the 6.2-liter that’s been around for almost two decades. Sadly, we have no power or torque figures, but displacement for both motors is up by 0.4-liters, so things sounds promising. Chevy says about the two motors: “these next-generation V8s deliver improvements in power and torque giving customers more choice without compromise.”
The gigantic 2.7-liter turbocharged four-cylinder is sticking around (Chevy says it has been “enhanced”), though now it’s mated to a 10-speed auto instead of an 8-speed, and a 3.0-liter turbodiesel joins the fun, as well.
Chevy emphasizes that of its seven trims, three of them are lifted: the ZR2, the Trail Boss and Custom Trail Boss. (Random thought: If Chevy had six trims, would they say three are lifted or three are lowered? Food for thought…).
The ZR2 sits on 35s with a two-inch lift, a special “off-road hood,” standard lockers front and rear, and Multimatic DSSV dampers.
The Custom Trail Boss (a more budget friendly Trail Boss) and regular Trail Boss (shown above) has the same two-inch lift, but makes do with 34s.
I myself like the Work Truck trim, because the steelies look great. On the other end of the spectrum is the High Country, which is the flagship trim:
It’s got a gorgeous interior that matches the aggressive, angular exterior styling pretty much perfectly:
There’s a lot of screen happening in the cabin, with a 16.3-inch center display, a 12.2-inch gauge display, and an 11.5-inch screen for the passenger. How well will all of this screen-ification age? I don’t know. But as of right now, it looks great.
Really, overall the truck — built on the T1-2 platform that is a modified version of the outgoing truck’s T1 bones — looks nice. It’s not a huge departure from the outgoing machine stylistically or architecturally speaking, but it’s a nice update, and I’m really excited to learn more about how the new V8 motors perform in the Silverado 1500.
All Images: Chevy
I get reminded of the Squarebody and GMT400 from that front end.
And if you look closely, the interior has buttons!
I’m not a pickup guy. I’ve owned a Datsun 720 and a couple of Toyotas. Now, I rent one when I need one.
I’m not overly enamored of the Chevy’s new face (or interior) but I’d take it over the current ones and any Ford these days on aesthetics alone. And actually, current RAMs look decent enough.
Going up Siskiyou Pass this afternoon in southern Oregon and there were three white pickups from the big three side-by-side in the rearview mirror and TBH, the RAM looked the least obnoxious.
If I was a pickup guy, I would get down into details about reliability, maintenance and repair costs. And regardless of what you think about looks, I’d probably wait a year or two or three to see how this new generation of GM engines hold up.
Big improvement over the current gen, it looks like a scaled-up Colorado, which is the best looking midsizer.
The grille could be cleaned up though; I don’t dig the upsidedownface styling. I’m curious to see the GMC version, over the past few gens of truck the GMC has looked cleaner.
My first vehicle ever was a 350 powered Chevy pickup, so it would be cool to be able to get one again. I’ll give it a few years to see how the new engines shake out though. It’s a sad world where GM is building unreliable V8’s.
The work truck model seems excessively lifted. There’s a massive gap between the tire and the fender that looks… off to me.
36″ load height will do that.
well; it has to faux bad azz.
Probably has tiny stock sized tires, and the black trim makes the fender opening look larger.
Interior designers looks at ever larger and wider vehicles, the shifter out of the way on the steering column, with all that extra room what to do? Lets add a center console that takes up a third of the width of the cab, will not allow sliding to other side, makes it so only two can sit in front where three could with room to spare, or four in a pinch. The solution: add a full second row, two more doors, shorter bed but a longer truck. And $10,000 more to the price. Apply to all trucks, suv’s, and cars.
But does it still have the transmission co-developed with Ford? If so, no thanks.
Give me a genuine Allison transmission any day.
sure it does, they need to recoup their investment…
They’ve had the issues worked out of that trans for several years now
https://rohnertparktransmission.com/blog/gm-10-speed-transmission-recall-silverado-sierra-2025
This is just one of about 10-12 articles I found highlighting issues with this transmission and the 8-speed. All from last year, all affecting even the 2024 models.
All these powertrain choices, but none are the PHEV or EREV that I really want to buy. Electric commute to work. Gas for long trips pulling my camper. Gobs of instant torque for getting my trailer moving. Come on!
Have you considered the Silverado EV? with 450 miles of range its about the only EV truck that can haul a camper legitimately
Not really. I don’t want to deal with EV charging while going to camping destinations. We have an EV and a PHEV, but will stick with gas for the truck for now. My truck is a 21 with 40,000 miles on it, so truthfully, I won’t be in the market for a different truck for quite a while.
The Silverado EV is by far the closest that anyone’s gotten to making a camper-hauling EV, but it’s still pretty borderline at best. Partly the lack of pull-through charging spots, partly the towing range being usable but still annoyingly short, and partly the tradeoff between range and payload basically constraining things to teardrops and not much larger.
I’d love to tow with BEV, but I’m not sure it’ll be practical until solid-state batteries are rolled out and mature, which is a few years yet. In the meantime, something like essentially a scaled-up Voltec drivetrain with a payload on the higher end of the half-ton range would be really excellent. Bonus points for 30A@120V inverter output and the ability to choose between cycling the ICE or shutting off when the traction battery gets low in inverter mode.
Beauty only a sleep-deprived engineer can see I guess. Because I sure can’t see any of it. Fugly is as fugly does.
The engines needed to get even bigger why exactly? Did they get any less explodey? How ’bout those 10 speeds? Any less shuddery?
It is easier to meet emission standards and maintain power with more displacement.
The 6.6L isn’t new – it has been in the HD trucks, vans, and commercial vehicles for awhile.
That L8T doesn’t produce more power than the L87 6.2 though, just 4 more foot-lbs. I believe this new generation V8 architecture spawned 3 new variants off the jump: the 350, the Corvette’s LS6, and new 400 cubic-inch.
The L8T doesn’t need more power or torque – it is about the perfect truck engine with more than 400 lb-ft of torque from 1800 RPM.
Fair, but it’s still a LT-based engine. I’m betting the ’27s get a new 6.6L, and not the L8T.
When I’m wrong, which for some reason I kinda hope I am, then hey, GM made a good choice for once.
I can’t really see why GM needs two 6.6L V8 pushroad truck engines but you might be right.
This could be a new aluminum block 6.6L for the light duty trucks and SUVs that will have more power for the spec sheet racers and require premium fuel like the current 6.2L.
EDIT: Some other sites are speculating this is a new 6.6L that will make 500 hp and that GM is claiming it to be the most powerful NA V8 in a light duty truck.
So, if that’s the case, GM:
I’d love to be a part of the meetings they have. I want to hear the nonsense they talk about!
Pretty sure this is an all new 6.6. Not the one that has been available.
I looks like you are right. This is a new 6.6L tuned up so GM can claim the most powerful NA V8 in a light duty truck. It is the bench racer’s engine not the engine for people doing work.
The larger displacement is because they can make more torque in 4 cylinder mode. Then for EPA fuel economy testing it will stay in low displacement mode more often improving those numbers. YMMV in the real world….
The explodeyness probably won’t. I bet it’s contagious.
fugly. agreed
Screens will age like the high technology of the 80s and 90s did: poorly
Those fleet spec steelies are dope though
Yes and no. I love buttons as much as anyone, and prefer analog gauges. But just as I don’t see aircraft going back to steam punk dials and a thousand buttons, I don’t see screens in cars going away completely. But wall-to-wall is absurd. I think there is a happy medium, and with the incorporation of a handful of buttons for common quick access things like climate control. The new VW ID Polo appears to get it right.
Yes, I think auto UX designers need to spend some time with flight deck design engineers for Airbus/Boeing/Embraer and the FAA/EASA. Modern flight decks are the product of a hell of a lot of testing on human responses in stressful situations, and while there’s touchscreens all over, none of the critical controls (including pilot air conditioning!) are shunted solely to them, they have to have their own unique and recognizeable-by-touch-alone form.
I would peg touch-screen bullshit in the current auto UX design world as being responsible for upper 4 to lower 5 figures of deaths a year around the world. Utterly insane.
Yeah the entire-dash display is gonna look stupid and cringe in five years though, mark my words
Airplanes are just an entirely different use case than cars. Distraction from looking outside is mostly not a thing, and in those occasions where the pilots NEED to be looking outside, the distractions are actively suppressed. There is a HELL of a lot more information that needs to be displayed, and absolutely none of it is purely for entertainment purposes. Plus at least in theory, highly trained professionals working the systems. And even then, aircraft controls are mostly not touchscreens. Just a few less-critical ones are starting to be, but I doubt it will ever be the way it is in cars.
In cars it’s just a combination of cost-cutting and bling factor. And far, far, far too tempting of a distraction. And/or in too many cases, actual obstruction of using the it.
I miss the largely white on black marking of the gauges in my long gone 1967 C-150G.
I’ve read enough to (probably) figure out a glass panel in a relatively simple fixed-wing plane. At least what I really need to know.
Similarly, the analog instruments on the 60s and 70s era Bell 206’s I used to shoot out of in my TV days were pretty straight-forward to understand.
I got to be a passenger on a demo flight of a B-407 back in 1999 and they were already going glass panel. And I enjoy watching startup sequences in the Airbus Helicopters line of models up to the EC-145s commonly used by Medevac services.
I can’t imagine what the military folks flying Blackhawks, Apaches et al see on the IP and in their helmets, with weapons targeting on top of just flying them.
Back to panel displays in cars, I do wonder about how they will hold up over time. I have a 15-year-old LG LCD TV that has held up surprisingly well. It recently developed a dim band across the screen about 3/4 of the way up. It can get warm in my condo during the summer, but nowhere near a brutal environment as what screens go through in cars and aircraft.
And they likely will be unobtanium when they do go bad in classic cars.
On the one hand, I think it’s going to be a problem for sure in the long run. On the other hand, the modern ability to cottage industry build things electronic should not be underestimated. As long as there is enough demand, somebody will probably be able to whip up a replacement in thier basement. And really, the sundry canbus modules will probably be waaay more of a problem than the user interface touchscreens.
But I doubt there is much chance as many of today’s cars will exist as still exist as 50’s-90’s cars after a similar amount of time. Nor the same sort of nostalgia for them. My Spitfire is in it’s mid 50s and there are still TONS of them around – how many Polestars will still exist in 50+ years?
“Exterior passenger front 3/4 beauty shot.”
Hmm, I missed the beauty, just saw the shot.
Dear gawd modern full sizers are ugly.
Agreed. On both counts. It might make an interesting (amusing?) Tales from the Slack about how these images get named internally.
I’m digging the refresh. the 2.7 turbo would actually be plenty of truck for me but i’m interested in the 3.0 i6 diesel
I suspect the 2.7 gas turbo will have lower cost of ownership.
Unless you need the extra towing capacity, the 2.7 is pretty solid. It pulled my 5k camping trailer over the Sierras without breaking a sweat. It was mostly in the 2-3k rpm range the entire time.
The 2.7l turbo puts out 40+hp and 100+ lb-ft. of torque compared to the 5.3l in the GMT400, so that tracks.
Have GM sorted the issues with the LZ0? I believe it was crank thrust bearing failure.
If the price of diesel had been where it’s at compared to 87 octane gas, I never would have bought my ’01 Jetta TDI. I’m glad it wasn’t as that was a fun car. Just not the most reliable.
I have made many trips up and down I-5 from roughly Seattle to Sacramento over the years. The TDI would get 49-51 mpg. Maybe it should have, but it didn’t also consume DEF. My ’17 V6 Accord gets 38-40 on regular. Diesel is almost always about a dollar a gallon more these days regardless of whether it’s in WA, OR or CA.
I dunno. Drive what you like. Life is too short to get into the economic weeds.
It’s a shame that it still looks like it’s at least 6″ taller than it needs to be and STILL looks like it was beaten with the ugly-stick.
Beaten hard with the ugly stick.
Once that broke they got the ugly pole out for a few more hits.
My dad had two C10s when I was a kid so even though my car’s a Honda I’m culturally obligated to be a Chevy man if I ever needed a pickup.
Good thing I can carry everything I need to in a hatchback.