Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just heard about this today. GM seems to have done an unbelievably good job on keeping it a secret until formal announcement.

No official word on power and torque; but Opel offerings provide a range of what to expect.
Dream Team: New Top Diesel Engine for Opel Insignia Flagship
The latest most power 2l inline 4 from Opel is rated at 210hp/354ft-lbs; the one step down version offers 170hp/295ft-lbs; scaling to 3 liter and six cylinder gives us a range of 255 to 315hp and 442 to 531 ft-lbs.

The top of the range is more than the Cumins 5.0 V8 in the Nissan and the never produced 4.5l Duramax V8.

The Ford 3.0l V6 diesel is 250hp/440ft-lbs ; not bad for engine that has been around for a over a decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_AJD-V6/PSA_DT17 and better than the VM Motori V6 in the RAM at 240hp/420ft-lbs.

BMW gets 265 to 400 hp and 457 to 561 ft-lbs from it's current 3l inline 6 diesels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_B57

I suspect that we'll see this engine in a Cadillac too.

I wonder how hard it would be to install the 3l 6 with 10 speed auto in my ZR2 ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
I'm glad they decided to put a 3.0L in the Silverado. I was concerned they were going to use the 2.8. As much as I love that engine in my truck, it does leave me wishing it had just a little bit more oomph for passing and merging. I feel like the numbers we're seeing from the various 3 liters would make a world of differences in our trucks. Tuning can get you there, admittedly. The stock 2.8 really wouldn't be enough with the Silverado's weight/size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
This sounds like a great engine for the full size. Inline 6, this will get a few Cummins guys looking at getting a half ton.
The 2.8l would do fine in the 1/2 ton , my Canyon weighs 5k pounds, not a whole lot lighter than some 1/2 ton puck ups. The towing capacity would just drop by 1k lbs due to its heavier curb weight. But I am glad they decided to go inline 6 and another .2L ,just for the extra grunt for the more capable platform. Good job GM, the inline is a better choice than the v6 that Fiat and Ford are using.

The look of the new GM 1/2 tons, and the inline 6 Diesel, almost make me want a full size again. I do love my 2.8L though, so I'll get over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
Wifey has the new Cruze diesel with a 1.6l i4... was hoping they are going to put out a 3.2L i8.... the little cruze engine is very impressive. Scaled up it would be 274hp + 480lb-ft
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,703 Posts
Inline diesel, always the best way to go.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,544 Posts
The diesel isn't even the most interesting part of the announcement, to me and definitely lol @ the 30MPG highway rumor. Not untuned it won't.

https://youtu.be/p3mH9ybMrs4

The truck storage boxes, the pass through seating storage, tow camera ports.. they've really spent a hell of a lot of time and design effort on this iteration.

That said, the front end is heinous. And the lady that was super proud of the chrome... urgh... your ring and your bracelets tell me why you like it so much.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I got the news late yesterday evening regaring the inline 3.0 6 diesel. Sounds tempting, but i like my 2.8 duramax. I just need to invest in a tune to get the max out of this duramax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
The diesel isn't even the most interesting part of the announcement, to me and definitely lol @ the 30MPG highway rumor. Not untuned it won't.

https://youtu.be/p3mH9ybMrs4

The truck storage boxes, the pass through seating storage, tow camera ports.. they've really spent a hell of a lot of time and design effort on this iteration.

That said, the front end is heinous. And the lady that was super proud of the chrome... urgh... your ring and your bracelets tell me why you like it so much.
You say lol, but that source has a knack for being correct. I agree that there are a lot more interesting features, but the cat is barely even out of the bag I bet. Just have to let it unfold sadly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
The diesel isn't even the most interesting part of the announcement, to me and definitely lol @ the 30MPG highway rumor. Not untuned it won't.

https://youtu.be/p3mH9ybMrs4

The truck storage boxes, the pass through seating storage, tow camera ports.. they've really spent a hell of a lot of time and design effort on this iteration.

That said, the front end is heinous. And the lady that was super proud of the chrome... urgh... your ring and your bracelets tell me why you like it so much.
That is far from lol, Ram's are meeting or exceeding their mpg numbers and they are rated up to 29 hwy. 30 is easily attainable with a new engine, more tech and full redesign 5 years later. Shoot Edmunds put 50k on a diesel and got 23 mpg combined over that period excluding towing (22 with towing calculated in).

Tyler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,228 Posts
Question.... What is the deal with the Diesel engines? The EPA Greenie's mafia seems to hate Diesels. They gave a huge Black Eye to VW for outperforming the Hybrids. (Sarcasm)

Nevertheless... Will like to see it, I would consider the jump from the Twins to the Silverado if sports that Diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
I really like the storage compartments. One of the things I liked about my 1995 C1500 was the stepside bed. You had a square bed without wheel wells protruding into the bed so you could stack boxes and other items much easier.

I am thinking that a similar design on our midsize trucks, but having the storage boxes slightly lower than the bed rails, you could use the storage boxes to stack/support 4X8 lumber when you needed to haul it, have the inbed storage, and have that square bed I liked.

The idea that they moved the trailer blind spot sensor out of the taillights to simplify them was also a good thought. It seems like so many of the new features on vehicles drives up the costs for parts to ridiculous prices. One of the areas that I see this is the worse is the outside rear view mirrors. The mirrors on my wife's Rogue have heat, turn signals, and the surround cameras all in them. Replacing one of those has got to cost a fortune. Of course, GM took the sensor out of the tail light and stuck it in the bumper, so the costs of the bumper just went up.

All of this has given me something to think about. My wife's Rogue has those surround cameras, I really like them. But on a pickup, frequently the owner replaces the original mirrors with tow mirrors. How to properly incorporate the surround cameras into a tow mirror that could be extended, etc. would seem to create a whole new set of design issues for the engineers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
Question.... What is the deal with the Diesel engines? The EPA Greenie's mafia seems to hate Diesels. They gave a huge Black Eye to VW for outperforming the Hybrids. (Sarcasm)

Nevertheless... Will like to see it, I would consider the jump from the Twins to the Silverado if sports that Diesel.
Older unregulated diesels last a long time and emit a lot of smoke. There are plenty of pre-emissions big rigs and heavy trucks out there still merrily belching away. Those vehicles form a lot of the public's negative perception of diesels. Rednecks purposely rolling coal while passing bicycle riders and posting up their videos on YouTube do not help either.

This is an interesting question, one I have thought about a bit in my truck's case. NOx and particulate matter are the big problem for diesels, of course that is addressed by complex and expensive exhaust after treatment systems that can cause problems on their own. My otherwise unmodified Canyon is completely odor and smoke free, even with it's EGR and DEF turned off via tuning. The truck also gets around 15% better fuel economy with no EGR as well, but no doubt it puts out more NOx, which is thought to be a greenhouse gas. I honestly don't know the answer, but wonder if one takes a complete overarching "macro" view of things, how having EGR and DEF active vs. having them turned off in my truck's case balances out overall.

1) DEF is transported usually in non bio degradable but potentially recyclable plastic bottles, that have an environmental impact.

2) DEF has to be manufactured at a plant, the construction of which has an environmental impact. The plant consumes large amounts of filtered water, power (which results in varying levels of emissions depending on how it is generated) and other items used in the manufacturing process. Then there are the vehicles driven by employees to the plant, and the environmental cost of transporting the DEF itself, which also has an environmental impact.

3) EGR hurts combustion efficiency/fuel economy to the tune of 15% or so, and also engine longevity. It definitely has an environmental impact if the engine is 15% less efficient, and the service life of the engine is cut in half by EGR, which I do not think is an unreasonable conclusion. The tuned engine's hotter/cleaner combustion without EGR produces more NOx but also produces less soot and as a result regenerates the DPF almost 50% less often too, which requires less fuel devoted to regenerating, and the reduced soot load has to help the DPF last longer, another environmental credit.

4) More than a few enthusiast owners, when faced with the negative impacts, particularly of EGR, say "**** it" and with considerable effort and expense, delete the entire emissions system, which has an environmental impact.

These are all debits against the "good" EGR/DEF does, and I am sure there are more. I honestly wonder if the total macro environmental footprint (oh how eco types love the word "footprint") of my little 2.8 in it's current and much happier tuned and semi emissions control disabled state with it's DEF and EGR turned off, is smaller than stock. I imagine that overall, the modding my truck with a tune that turns EGR and DEF off is a net negative for the environment, but there are significant credits to the eco balance sheet too that are overlooked. In the end, it sure runs a helluva lot better, and it has to be less of an environmental pig than the gas sucking Tundra 5.7L V8s that all my friends drive. My truck literally gets better than twice their fuel economy, and comparing yourself to those are are worse than you is always helpful in feeling better :laugh:

I really think EGR should be done away with in diesels, and that DEF/DPFs should continue be used, and that reasonable emissions standards for them are put in place. It is out of whack when the US has stricter standards for diesels than Europe does, and it "triggers" (another buzzword for the nut jobs) my inner conspiracy theorist. There are significant hidden but not too hard to discern costs to the current extreme diesel emissions standards. VW basically said screw that, and, in my truck's case, so did I.

It is funny, a neighbor of mine has a VW diesel. She happily kept her car, that she likes very much, and continues to get mid 50s highway MPG with what I see as a pretty desirable little diesel. So many people turned them in right away, which is a pity, as they were "tuned" from the factory! Also, per the terms of the settlement, it really is financially astute to hang onto and drive the Hell out of the car, and then turn it in at the last possible moment and get a fat stack of cash from VW. That is what my neighbor is likely doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
@Duken4evr,

I don't think anyone really understands and adds up the total "FOOTPRINT" of what we do to try to achieve certain environmental targets.

What is the environmental footprint of building a vehicle and delivering it to a consumer to begin with? All of the transportation to the manufacturing plant of parts, plating and painting processes, flushing toilets in the plant ( I guess the employees would still flush a toilet, even if they were sitting in their pajamas on their couch watching TV and collecting unemployment), all the way to delivering the car to the consumer add up to a pretty big hit to the environment over driving a 20 year old car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
@Duken4evr,

I don't think anyone really understands and adds up the total "FOOTPRINT" of what we do to try to achieve certain environmental targets.

What is the environmental footprint of building a vehicle and delivering it to a consumer to begin with? All of the transportation to the manufacturing plant of parts, plating and painting processes, flushing toilets in the plant ( I guess the employees would still flush a toilet, even if they were sitting in their pajamas on their couch watching TV and collecting unemployment), all the way to delivering the car to the consumer add up to a pretty big hit to the environment over driving a 20 year old car.
Exactly. But if we are really interested in the environment, these factors should be in the equation, otherwise we are wasting our time, and quite possibly making things that we are trying to improve worse.

On an unrelated environmental note, forest fire management is another area that is a "hot topic" (sorry for the pun). Mankind means well when we aggressively contain and control wildfires, but this meddling breaks the natural fire cycle, and the far hotter superfires that we are seeing are the result. Then, arrogant fools we are, we compound the problem by putting lots of homes in burn areas. We may just be far less clever than we think we are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
357 Posts
You could say the same about the EV movement. If you look over the course of 10 years a gasoline vehicle will emit less particles than an EV because the energy required to make a stack of batteries is very high. I forget the source but an article I read stated that EVs start out with 60% higher emissions than an ICE off the dealer floor. Then look at most every state besides OR, WA & CA. Chances are their power is not renewable. I love EVs but I’ll standby ICE vehicles until it’s really plausible to make a switch and I have a feeling fuel cell will win that war. Of which GM and Honda own 95% patents in he world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Question.... What is the deal with the Diesel engines? The EPA Greenie's mafia seems to hate Diesels. They gave a huge Black Eye to VW for outperforming the Hybrids. (Sarcasm)

Nevertheless... Will like to see it, I would consider the jump from the Twins to the Silverado if sports that Diesel.
I'm guessing some of it has to do with the guys that like to "roll coal" with their diesels. There are plenty of videos of them smoking out hybrids on YouTube.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
I have a feeling that gm is going to stick it to everyone and just like they did with the twins the diesel is going to be only in certain upper trims. The Z71 now isn't even an option anymore it's a trim level.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
Discussion Starter #19

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
A bit more on the 3l diesel. Per C&D https://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/the-15-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-2019-chevrolet-silverado-1500?src=nl&mag=cdb&list=nl_dvr_news&date=011918#8 it was developed in Turin; which means: GM Powertrain Torino https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Powertrain_Torino. That is the design center responsible for the 2l inline 4 used by Opel, rated at 210hp/354ft-lbs.

315hp/531 ft-lbs would be nice.
So by the sound of that, its going to be an Opel designed diesel then eh? Scaled up Opel 2L i4?

I was half expecting this to be the 2.8L with another cylinder added on, but then i realize the total displacement wouldn't make sense unless they shrunk/reduced things. Gonna be interesting to hear more about this engine, and I wonder if a special edition of Colly or Canyon could get it at some point.

edit: on further digging, it looks like at least some design elements and/or knowledge from the Fiat partnership that led to the 2.8 Duramax will make it into the 3L i6 Duramax since it seems like the GM Powertrain Torino plant was created in part because of the partnership that GM originally started with Fiat for diesels to begin with. Cool.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top