Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
It may be able to get close MPG empty because peak power isn't needed, but a gas engine will never get better towing MPG than a diesel. Gasoline simply lacks the energy density of diesel and requires more gas to get similar output.


And that’s fine. I tow once a month or so. If the diesel gets 20-30% better mpg towing that one time a month it had little effect on my overall fuel usage. Diesel also cost $0.30 more on average nationally, and is more like $0.50 where I live so that cost savings is really ~10%.

Here in Utah the diesel twins are popular. I see them everywhere. My podunk local Chevy dealer has like 4 cars on the lot and 4 of them a Duramax ZR2’s. You know how many of them I see towing and not just driving around town? Very few.

I understand that the MPG readout on the dash is really impressive with the diesel, but that’s not the whole story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
Sweet engine, I sure love turbo'd applications, talk about fun to drive. I could only imagine what this little guy will do with a tune...



However having said that, if any of the ecoboosts or numerous WRXs/grand nationals/other misc turbo vehicles I've driven are any indication, no it will not get anywhere near the gas mileage of the diesel.



My father in laws '15 camaro SS got better gas mileage than any of my WRXs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
Longer than what? The 2.8L inline 4 diesel that is already in the Colorado? I can’t see it being that much longer.

This engine will be epic in the twins. It will have a torque curve arguably better than the diesel and a hp number better than the V6. MPG should be excellent.

Here is an overlay of the torque and hp curves. I had to do them separately since the Dmax plot use different scalings for the two.

Torque:


HP:



And I bet if GM let the 2.7’s torque curve go on its natural progression instead of hard-capping it at 348, it would have approached 400 ft lbs at 2000 rpm. It would outperform the diesel at any point in the rpms.

My theory is that they did this to protect the 5.3 in the Silverado. They have positioned the 5.3 as a more premium motor and they don’t want all the V8 lovers to stomp their feet.
Like I said, I highly doubt that it will show up until the next refresh (GM authority states that around 2023). I'm sure it will make its way, but certainly not in the 31XX platform. I'm sure the 2.7L outperforms the V8 due to the torque curve shift. I expect the 0-60 to reflect that (I bet this is why the RST trim has the 2.7L over the 6.2L). I fully agree with your analysis, but I wouldn't hold your breath until the full refresh releases.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Like I said, I highly doubt that it will show up until the next refresh (GM authority states that around 2023). I'm sure it will make its way, but certainly not in the 31XX platform. I'm sure the 2.7L outperforms the V8 due to the torque curve shift. I expect the 0-60 to reflect that (I bet this is why the RST trim has the 2.7L over the 6.2L). I fully agree with your analysis, but I wouldn't hold your breath until the full refresh releases.
I’m hoping the Ford 2.3 ranger might push them. I suspect the 2.3 will have power figures in this ballpark but maybe not as much low end.



Sweet engine, I sure love turbo'd applications, talk about fun to drive. I could only imagine what this little guy will do with a tune...



However having said that, if any of the ecoboosts or numerous WRXs/grand nationals/other misc turbo vehicles I've driven are any indication, no it will not get anywhere near the gas mileage of the diesel.



My father in laws '15 camaro SS got better gas mileage than any of my WRXs.

The 3.5 ecoboost is not known to get exceptional mpg’s. However, if you go by fuelly, it does just as well as the GM v8’s and better than the ram, Nissan, or Toyota v8’s.

The 2.7 ecoboost is a different story. It’s a full 2 mpg better than any other “premium” gasoline engine on fuelly and is within 12% the ram ecodiesels mpg since they did the emissions reprogramming. That’s close enough that the extra cost of diesel fuel offsets any savings. Not only that but the 2.7 ecoboost F150 is knocking on the door of the 3.6L Colorado mpg numbers.

If you buy into GMs hype on this new motor with its AFM and dual volute turbo, etc, I believe it will outperform the 2.7 ecoboost. When put into a smaller, lighter mid sized truck it should do exceptional.

I bet they plan on running it like a diesel too. Imagine cruising on the freeway at 70 mph. If this drops down to 2 cylinders it’s going to need to run near full power to push a truck through the air. They can run it with the throttle body wide open and the turbo spooled up just like a diesel which will eliminate the pumping loses that give diesels an advantage.

All I am saying is I think GM may have hit a homerun with this motor. If all these technologies synchronize like I think they will, I believe this motor will be the best thing in the mid sized segment by a wide margin.

I had an 2007 legacy GT and it sucked on mpg’s. Terrible. A 3200 lb car should not average 21 mpg. My wife had an 09 legacy 2.5i that barely did any better. The 2.5 was just not a great motor. The new WRX with the 2.0 GTDI does much better. As you said, my LS2 GTO I had prior to my WRX was better of gas and weighed 600 lbs more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
The 3.5 ecoboost is not known to get exceptional mpg’s. However, if you go by fuelly, it does just as well as the GM v8’s and better than the ram, Nissan, or Toyota v8’s.

The 2.7 ecoboost is a different story. It’s a full 2 mpg better than any other “premium” gasoline engine on fuelly and is within 12% the ram ecodiesels mpg since they did the emissions reprogramming. That’s close enough that the extra cost of diesel fuel offsets any savings.

If you buy into GMs hype on this new motor with its AFM and dual volute turbo, etc, I believe it will outperform the 2.7 ecoboost. When put into a smaller, lighter mid sized truck it should do exceptional.

I bet they plan on running it like a diesel too. Imagine cruising on the freeway at 70 mph. If this drops down to 2 cylinders it’s going to need to run near full power to push a truck through the air. They can run it with the throttle body wide open and the turbo spooled up just like a diesel which will eliminate the pumping loses that give diesels an advantage.

All I am saying is I think GM may have hit a homerun with this motor. If all these technologies synchronize like I think they will, I believe this motor will be the best thing in the mid sized segment by a wide margin.

I hope that you're right and that it will be as great as you say. I would love a little turbo gas engine in a midsize and think it would be very fun.

I just haven't seen a real efficient turbo gas motor. The 2.7L in the ford does get 2mpg better gas mileage than the 3.5L which is great but not amazing. You have to run 87 in the ecobost which here costs more than diesel. Not saying I don't believe you, but I'm going to have to remain skeptical until I actually see it. I know way too many F150 owners who get terrible gas mileage with their 3.5s on a consistent basis.

I do bet that the ranger and it's 2.3L makes GM do something sooner rather than later though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
First off let’s do out with the misinformation. The ford ranger is getting a 2.3L ecoboost from the mustang not F150. The 2.3L eco boost is an inline 4 cylinder and the 2.7L from the F150 is a Vee 6 cylinder. 2 completely different engines with different purposes.

That said comparing the V6 in the Colorado to the V6 in the Camaro nets an MPG loss of 3 mpg on the highway. If you compare that to the I4 in the same way you have an estimated 28-29 mpg with the ranger. But I bet it’s closer to 26-27 mpg due to turbo boost. Now even if it’s closer to 30 mpg the diesel Colorado will tow more and tow better and achieve more mpg when unloaded. There is no reason to put the 2.7L from the Silverado into the mid size when they still beat out the ranger on mpg fronts if that’s your selling point. Now if speed is your selling point the 2.3L ecoboost will probably be about as fast as the V6 maybe slower due to turbo lag.

I understand the points made but still highly doubt it won’t come to fruition until the full refresh. Also plopping in an engine not designed from stage 1 to go in the 31XX platform is not as easy as “does is fit?” There is A LOT that goes into the process and if the engine was not designed for a platform it isn’t just going in it without a full redesign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
First off let’s do out with the misinformation. The ford ranger is getting a 2.3L ecoboost from the mustang not F150. The 2.3L eco boost is an inline 4 cylinder and the 2.7L from the F150 is a Vee 6 cylinder. 2 completely different engines with different purposes.

That said comparing the V6 in the Colorado to the V6 in the Camaro nets an MPG loss of 3 mpg on the highway. If you compare that to the I4 in the same way you have an estimated 28-29 mpg with the ranger. But I bet it’s closer to 26-27 mpg due to turbo boost. Now even if it’s closer to 30 mpg the diesel Colorado will tow more and tow better and achieve more mpg when unloaded. There is no reason to put the 2.7L from the Silverado into the mid size when they still beat out the ranger on mpg fronts if that’s your selling point. Now if speed is your selling point the 2.3L ecoboost will probably be about as fast as the V6 maybe slower due to turbo lag.

I understand the points made but still highly doubt it won’t come to fruition until the full refresh. Also plopping in an engine not designed from stage 1 to go in the 31XX platform is not as easy as “does is fit?” There is A LOT that goes into the process and if the engine was not designed for a platform it isn’t just going in it without a full redesign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're right, I spaced it's the 2.3 in the ranger. I still think 26-27 mpg is far fetched in a ranger considering the average in the mustang is 25 mpg according to fuelly and the EPA combined estimate. Everyone I know with an ecoboost gets significantly less fuel economy than the EPA ratings. I do bet the 2.3L will make darn good power when tuned however, lol.


In terms of designing for the platform, I would bet they've had the 2.7L in mind for quite some time. It's always good to have options (like adding a 2.8l diesel after the first year of production). It wouldn't surprise me if they seriously considered the 2.7L or 2.0L in the twins for as long as they've been around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
You're right, I spaced it's the 2.3 in the ranger. I still think 26-27 mpg is far fetched in a ranger considering the average in the mustang is 25 mpg according to fuelly and the EPA combined estimate. Everyone I know with an ecoboost gets significantly less fuel economy than the EPA ratings. I do bet the 2.3L will make darn good power when tuned however, lol.


In terms of designing for the platform, I would bet they've had the 2.7L in mind for quite some time. It's always good to have options (like adding a 2.8l diesel after the first year of production). It wouldn't surprise me if they seriously considered the 2.7L or 2.0L in the twins for as long as they've been around.


I meant 26-27 highway not combined. Combined I expect to be in line with V6 twin numbers ~22 mpg. Driveability and reliability is way more of a selling point for truck people. That 2.3L has been plagued with head gasket issues and sounds like they have it under control but I wouldn’t hold my breath that is the case. I mean a mustang is probably 800lbs lighter than the incoming ranger and I just don’t expect much from that engine in general. The only selling point is the 10 speed, but Ford has had issues with their version of it from what I suspect to be cost savings reasons. For me, I don’t see any reason to amp up the twins as Ford doesn’t have a revolutionary recipe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
First off let’s do out with the misinformation. The ford ranger is getting a 2.3L ecoboost from the mustang not F150. The 2.3L eco boost is an inline 4 cylinder and the 2.7L from the F150 is a Vee 6 cylinder. 2 completely different engines with different purposes.

That said comparing the V6 in the Colorado to the V6 in the Camaro nets an MPG loss of 3 mpg on the highway. If you compare that to the I4 in the same way you have an estimated 28-29 mpg with the ranger. But I bet it’s closer to 26-27 mpg due to turbo boost. Now even if it’s closer to 30 mpg the diesel Colorado will tow more and tow better and achieve more mpg when unloaded. There is no reason to put the 2.7L from the Silverado into the mid size when they still beat out the ranger on mpg fronts if that’s your selling point. Now if speed is your selling point the 2.3L ecoboost will probably be about as fast as the V6 maybe slower due to turbo lag.

I understand the points made but still highly doubt it won’t come to fruition until the full refresh. Also plopping in an engine not designed from stage 1 to go in the 31XX platform is not as easy as “does is fit?” There is A LOT that goes into the process and if the engine was not designed for a platform it isn’t just going in it without a full redesign.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know if I would go as far as saying the diesel will pull more. It’s shown time and time again that the small diesels suffer on hills due to lack of HP. The V6 COlorado does much better towing the Ike gauntlet than the Duramax despite the 11,000 ft of elevation reducing the V6 power.

And as far as I know the Duramax was never tested to J2807 while the V6 and I4 were, so as far as I can tell the Duramax shouldn’t even have the tow rating it does if we were to level the playing field.

I will give you that The dmax might have better low end for holding a taller gear on flat ground/mild hills than the 2.3 depending on the tuning in the ranger. The GM 2.7 would pretty much match the Duramax up 2500 rpm and then blow it out of the water above that.

I meant 26-27 highway not combined. Combined I expect to be in line with V6 twin numbers ~22 mpg. Driveability and reliability is way more of a selling point for truck people. That 2.3L has been plagued with head gasket issues and sounds like they have it under control but I wouldn’t hold my breath that is the case. I mean a mustang is probably 800lbs lighter than the incoming ranger and I just don’t expect much from that engine in general. The only selling point is the 10 speed, but Ford has had issues with their version of it from what I suspect to be cost savings reasons. For me, I don’t see any reason to amp up the twins as Ford doesn’t have a revolutionary recipe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the head gaskets were only issues on the Focus RS that had been accidentally given the lesser mustang gasket from the factory. The RS 2.3 turned up more than the mustang. If I search 2.3L headgasket issues, the RS is all that comes up.

I’ve also yet to hear any issues with the 10 speed beyond crappy shifting patterns due to the efficiency minded programming. It sounds like people are beating the everliving snot out of em with 1000 hp 5.0 builds and they take everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
I don’t know if I would go as far as saying the diesel will pull more. It’s shown time and time again that the small diesels suffer on hills due to lack of HP. The V6 COlorado does much better towing the Ike gauntlet than the Duramax despite the 11,000 ft of elevation reducing the V6 power.

I will give you that The dmax might have better low end for holding a taller gear on flat ground/mild hills than the 2.3 depending on the tuning in the ranger. The GM 2.7 would pretty much match the Duramax up 2500 rpm and then blow it out of the water above that.

I thought the head gaskets were only issues on the Focus RS that had been accidentally given the lesser mustang gasket from the factory. The RS 2.3 turned up more than the mustang. If I search 2.3L headgasket issues, the RS is all that comes up.

I’ve also yet to hear any issues with the 10 speed beyond crappy shifting patterns due to the efficiency minded programming. It sounds like people are beating the everliving snot out of em with 1000 hp 5.0 builds and they take everything.

Everyone I’ve ever talked to regarding towing with V6 vs. Diesel even in high elevation swears by the diesel. I have the V6 and had no issues going from MI to NY through PA at max capacity and barely saw trans temps past 130*F when ambient was around 50*F. The GM 2.7L is going to be a fantastic addition for the Silverado, I know I’m gonna pretend to be in the market just to test drive one LOL.

As for the 2.3L issues this explains it best https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a14510137/ford-focus-rs-head-gasket-issues/ . So now you have 3 variants of the 2.3L eco boost and already struggled with assembly and distribution with 2 variants. I just wouldn’t be surprised if there was some deja vu.

From what I have understood the ford 10 speed and GM one for that matter are phenomenal, but I’ve talked with a few Raptor owners of 2nd Gen’s with it and they’ve been eating them up. Not sure what the issue specifically is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Everyone I’ve ever talked to regarding towing with V6 vs. Diesel even in high elevation swears by the diesel. I have the V6 and had no issues going from MI to NY through PA at max capacity and barely saw trans temps past 130*F when ambient was around 50*F. The GM 2.7L is going to be a fantastic addition for the Silverado, I know I’m gonna pretend to be in the market just to test drive one LOL.

As for the 2.3L issues this explains it best https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/buying-maintenance/a14510137/ford-focus-rs-head-gasket-issues/ . So now you have 3 variants of the 2.3L eco boost and already struggled with assembly and distribution with 2 variants. I just wouldn’t be surprised if there was some deja vu.

From what I have understood the ford 10 speed and GM one for that matter are phenomenal, but I’ve talked with a few Raptor owners of 2nd Gen’s with it and they’ve been eating them up. Not sure what the issue specifically is.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Yeah im sure the diesel tows "better" in the sense that its more comfortable. Im talking about measured time it takes and actually being able to hold a reasonable speed.

J2807 is supposed to be the standard that all trucks get judged by these days. It seems GM managed to get the V6 and I4 J2807 certified for their tow ratings but forgot the duramax. My guess is that the 4x4 dmax would NOT have a 7600 lb towing capacity had they test to that standard. More like 6000. It has to be able to tow a 7% grade without going below 45mph and I just dont see it.

From the 2018 Users manual:

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
Already had the thought of how I might could put this is the Colorado if GM didn't. I honestly don't want the motor in the full size, not with them saying "it'll have comparable capacity ratings to Ford's V6 (non-turbo)". Already have that capacity in the Colorado.


BUT, in the smaller truck, that motor sounds PERFECT. Don't care for the cylinder deactivation much, mainly because GM has not gotten it right in the V8s, but with an OHC motor I bet it would be fine. Don't really care one way or the other on start/stop. Very much do care that the power is great, motor is designed for trucks, and fuel economy should be stellar as well.


That thing would stomp the Ford 2.3 pulling a trailer too. And I'm a Ford guy at heart, but the 2.3 is not a truck motor even though I want to like it. Here's to hoping they put it in a Colorado. And if they don't that it's easy to adapt, so I can do it for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Already had the thought of how I might could put this is the Colorado if GM didn't. I honestly don't want the motor in the full size, not with them saying "it'll have comparable capacity ratings to Ford's V6 (non-turbo)". Already have that capacity in the Colorado.


BUT, in the smaller truck, that motor sounds PERFECT. Don't care for the cylinder deactivation much, mainly because GM has not gotten it right in the V8s, but with an OHC motor I bet it would be fine. Don't really care one way or the other on start/stop. Very much do care that the power is great, motor is designed for trucks, and fuel economy should be stellar as well.


That thing would stomp the Ford 2.3 pulling a trailer too. And I'm a Ford guy at heart, but the 2.3 is not a truck motor even though I want to like it. Here's to hoping they put it in a Colorado. And if they don't that it's easy to adapt, so I can do it for them.
GM's marketing decisions are abysmal on the 1500 trucks. The way they allocate the the motors and transmissions across the new 2019 trims is so dumb:



  1. The 2.7 and lower end 5.3 still get the 8 speed.
  2. The higher end 5.3 still gets the 8 speed.
  3. The fact that they have two versions of the 5.3, one with AFM and one with DFM which is only in higher trims.
  4. The fact the 6.2 is only allocated to the top two trims.
  5. The diesel is not available in a cheap work truck trim where its brings the most value to someone who wants a cheap efficient truck and puts a ton of miles on it for work.
  6. The 2.7L is very clearly capped by tuning at 348 ft-lbs, which I guarantee is to protect 5.3 sales. That engine should be close to 400 @ 2000rpm and would make the 5.3 look like a piece of crap.
GM has some awesome powertrain technologies but they only deploy it in the trucks with the least to gain. Who is going to gain more from a 10 speed and DFM motor, the guy buying a 70k High country paying $1000 a month on his loan or the guy buying a WT for 30k and paying $450 a month?

With the exception of the new powerstroke, you can pretty much get any Ford motor in any trim or cab configuration of the F150 and all but the base V6 come with the 10 speed. Ford does the opposite and limits the lower end motors in the upper trim, IE the 2.7 can only be purchased in a Lariat. This makes sense though since people buying a $60-70,000 truck probably dont care much about the MPG's. I've never heard anyone go out and buy and F150 limited and bitch they couldnt get the 2.7 ecoboost.

My point is, I wouldnt be surprised if GM didnt put this in the colorado simply for marketing purposes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
  1. The 2.7 and lower end 5.3 still get the 8 speed.
  2. The higher end 5.3 still gets the 8 speed.
  3. The fact that they have two versions of the 5.3, one with AFM and one with DFM which is only in higher trims.
  4. The fact the 6.2 is only allocated to the top two trims.
  5. The diesel is not available in a cheap work truck trim where its brings the most value to someone who wants a cheap efficient truck and puts a ton of miles on it for work.
  6. The 2.7L is very clearly capped by tuning at 348 ft-lbs, which I guarantee is to protect 5.3 sales. That engine should be close to 400 @ 2000rpm and would make the 5.3 look like a piece of crap.
2.7 gets 8 speed and both lower trim 5.3 and 4.3 get the 6 speed carryover. You have to upgrade to get DFM or 8/10 speed transmissions. I'm sure the diesel will be available on fleet side, but nothing less than an LT (btw the most popular trim where they sell most trucks) can get it. Most customers don't use their trucks ONLY for work, so having premium options available and the diesel will sell great.

The 2.7L is definitely not capped by tuning because of the 5.3; you need to get a better idea of how engineering works. First you put your design criteria and then design around that; this means that the 350 ft-lbs was designed from the get go. That doesn't mean it can't make more power, surely it can, but that will reduce the life of engine components. By all means there will be people that "unlock" the tune and up it and then customers will start failing engines and be denied warranties. By the way the torque curve from the 2.7 already will eat into 5.3 sales as 90% of torque is available at 1500RPM where the 5.3 will need A LOT more time to get up to speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
I agree with both of you. While the 2.7 was probably designed to that power point to protect the 5.3, it would also potentially hurt longevity to up the power now. Especially if people use it to pull - ever notice how the bigger trucks using the duramax or power stroke are de-rated from the pickups to increase life with a load?

I also 100% agree that GM’s powertrain choices are ridiculous. Especially since they won’t even let consumers order many of these trucks (at a higher profit margin than fleet sales) even though they make them for fleets. Ford isn’t perfect; they probably brought out the ten speed a year too early, and at least GM put a manual in the Colorado (although the available options basically doomed half its potential sales right out the gate). And Ford has just decided they don’t need the 100s of thousands of customers that bought their cars each year. But I digress.

I guess my question is this: People usually purchase trucks based on what they could haul, not what they actually will. So they buy the Ford eco motors because they know mileage plus power in the state they will most often drive (empty) is best in class, BUT also because those motors come with a rating that tells the customer ‘if I ever do buy that boat/rv/trailer, this thing will pull it’.

This 2.7 may be the best motor for most people. But if GM can’t or won’t rate it to haul with the big boys, I can’t see it selling well. So then you wonder why the investment in this powertrain to barely take any sales. Hopefully it’s because they plan to use it in other vehicles too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,390 Posts
Interesting New Article and read about the GM 2.7L from Ton Stutter about the history, design and use for larger 4 cylinder engines. Very much a "balancing act" to be sure.

Based on this article and the engines design, wondering it it's vertical size may prevent it from being used in the Colorado or Canyon . . . at least of this 2nd generation. So this and other factors may play into it.
* - - "To make a big four, you need a big piston with a big bore and a long stroke. The length of the engine gets to be an issue as [displacement] gets bigger and bigger." - - *



https://www.caranddriver.com/features/general-motors-new-four-cylinder-turbo-engine

 
21 - 37 of 37 Posts
Top