I agree with what this guy says later in the video by getting the 3.0 inline 6 duramax. I'm hearing allot of good things about the new LZO version of that motor. Even more power and better MPG's.

 

My problem with this video is he make numerous generalizations and speculation, for example lifter failures, common on the AFM V8's but this is a DOHC engine...apples to oranges. Also the fact that he, like many others, focus on the MPG ratings...the technology in this engine is designed to meet more stringent emissions standards...while delivering the performance that consumers demand.

 

Again, someone who purports to be knowledgeable about engines saying the only reason GM is going with this new smaller engine is for increased fuel economy that it doesn't achieve. Are people just willfully ignoring emissions requirements or are they that ignorant about their chosen subject matter? I guess that goes to show you it is just as easy to start a YouTube channel as it is to make a post on a forum

 

You beat me to it, LOL...agree 100%

 

Not much thought going into a lot of these reviews. We all know that the new Twins aren’t seeing much if any fuel economy gains. But as others said above, the emissions improvements are almost as important as mpg.

Thea 2023 Twins also weigh a bit more than the 2022 trucks, most of the 2023‘s have a bit of a lift, and many come with more aggressive tires. Weight, aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance are all enemies of fuel exonomy.

I’m beginning to believe that the 3.6 V6 would see an even lower mpg rating in these trucks than the 2.7 I4 is getting.

As for the 3.0 L diesel, it is a sweet motor. But in my locale diesel costs about 35% more than 87 octane gas. Given the higher price of the diesel engine and the higher price of diesel fuel, it costs more to operate the diesel as opposed to a gas engine. None of that offsets the torque advantage of the diesel if you tow/haul loads that play to the diesel’s strengths. Pick the right tool for the job.

 

I'm not sure about that, the cost savings on fuel economy alone mean the engines pay themselves off in less then 100k miles, if you plan on keeping one long term the fuel savings is greater. I did the math between gas and diesel when i was looking at my gen2, I should have but the bullet on a D Max but I let other factors away my choice.

Diesel her in southern Ontario is about 20 cents more per liters so it's about 15% more. At 30% better fuel efficiency, that's a big chunk of coin savings on fuel

 

at large dealer other day, went to build a Colorado screen ... NO DIESEL option for 2024 any one else notice this

 

This diesel was discontinued with the end of the 2nd gen production. Same with the 3.6 and 2.5 gas engines. The 2023+ trucks only have the 2.7 offered.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

Again with 2024

 

I think this is some very good info. And I agree with pretty much everything he said.

You are correct, in that emissions drives a lot of the engine technology. But do I care about that? No, not really. Do YOU care about that? Most guys don't, as evidenced by how many engines are "deleted". The changes are miniscule.

What is important to me is power and mileage. I like the power this engine produces. But with the small fuel tank the range is <400 miles! I imagine with a travel trailer, range is going to be about 250-300 miles. On a trail, I imagine you'll be lucky to get 250 miles. That blows. My diesel with a 36 gallon tank has a range of almost 1,000 miles in back roads driving.

We all know direct injection engines have their problems.

Contrary to what is said above, this engine does use lifters. GM Genuine Parts Engine Valve Lifter | Product Search Results (chevrolet.com)

The technology is pretty intense. The more complicated something is, the more it's likely to fail. Fixing it without a very expensive computer might be difficult. And parts will be very expensive.

I tend to drive my vehicles between 100-120K miles. After that, repairs and maintenance can get pretty expensive and time consuming. A serious break down miles into the outback on a trail can be a real problem. And he brings up some very good points on this issue.

AFM is not new technology. And that has also been problematic over the years. Many people do figure out a way to turn that off to avoid those problems. Not conjecture or opinion, just fact. Just do a search on this board alone. And that was when it was purely electronic. Now a sliding camshaft? Not sure about that.

Remember, this is not a brand new engine. It's been available in the SIlverado for a couple of years.

This engine certainly doesn't fit me. I don't see me buying one in the near future.

 

I think this is some very good info. And I agree with pretty much everything he said.

You are correct, in that emissions drives a lot of the engine technology. But do I care about that? No, not really. Do YOU care about that? Most guys don't, as evidenced by how many engines are "deleted". The changes are miniscule.

What is important to me is power and mileage. I like the power this engine produces. But with the small fuel tank the range is <400 miles! I imagine with a travel trailer, range is going to be about 250-300 miles. On a trail, I imagine you'll be lucky to get 250 miles. That blows. My diesel with a 36 gallon tank has a range of almost 1,000 miles in back roads driving.

We all know direct injection engines have their problems.

Contrary to what is said above, this engine does use lifters. GM Genuine Parts Engine Valve Lifter | Product Search Results (chevrolet.com)

The technology is pretty intense. The more complicated something is, the more it's likely to fail. Fixing it without a very expensive computer might be difficult. And parts will be very expensive.

I tend to drive my vehicles between 100-120K miles. After that, repairs and maintenance can get pretty expensive and time consuming. A serious break down miles into the outback on a trail can be a real problem. And he brings up some very good points on this issue.

AFM is not new technology. And that has also been problematic over the years. Many people do figure out a way to turn that off to avoid those problems. Not conjecture or opinion, just fact. Just do a search on this board alone. And that was when it was purely electronic. Now a sliding camshaft? Not sure about that.

Remember, this is not a brand new engine. It's been available in the SIlverado for a couple of years.

This engine certainly doesn't fit me. I don't see me buying one in the near future.

If I bought the 3rd gen colorado I'd wait to make sure trifecta had a tune to turn off AFM. But like you I'm turned off with the MPG's on this. Its no better then full size. And these do have issues as has been reported for carbon build up on the silverados. If I lived in an area that did not require emission testing I would definitely pick up a used baby max with the six speed and turn off the DEF etc. That is a special type of setup. The 2.8 is not a big HP motor but its a work horse with lots of low end grunt. Unfortunately with the emissions its just not reliable enough for my tastes. Thinking of maybe a silverado with the new 3.0 inline six. The emissions works pretty good on that one and the latest LZO version has more power and much better MPG's.

 

We are talking about the 2.7L gas engine here - not previous diesel engine.

 

Depends on what your comparing economy with.

Some names are less then other names.

 

More food for thought for all you new engine break in'ers:

Keep it simple. It's not a race car.

 

HUGE RED FLAG @ 12:34!!! The tow rating is reduced (by 1,700 lb) because of the FRONT GRILL AREA and front skid plates. The front grill area indicates that this is a cooling problem. Usually, the tow rating of the offroad version of a truck is reduced by GVWR (weight of the body armor), suspension, or brakes/tire diameter. This is really bad news, I pray Andre was wrong or I'll have to reconsider my order/deposit on a ZR2. I have a Gladiator ecoDiesel and its tow rating is limited due to cooling, it is terrible. The rating standard is based on uncomfortably slow speeds, per SAE J2807 "truck-and-trailer combination must be able to drive at 40 mph". So I am towing along at 65 (1,500 lb below max weight) when the temp starts to rise and the computer derates the power, and the truck slows to 40-45 mph. At 40 mph I have had 18-wheelers pass me. It is very uncomfortable and unsafe.

 

So you joined the Forum and your 1st Post is to put down what the Forum is about.
Does that seem like the best move.

The ZR2's have never had the top towing capacity....