Chevy Colorado & GMC Canyon banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
As many of us know, the silverado with the inline 6 3.0L duramax has been pending to come out on the market. Well over the weekend a bunch of media outlets were given first chances to view and report on the new 3.0L engine in the silverado. One thing that is concerning me is the possibility that they just kicked the 2.8L in the balls in regards to MPG. Multiple media outlets were given a chance to drive a 27 mile 60mph max speed route to test out the vehicle and so far numbers have been looking pretty interesting on the loop. So far we have had media reports of 31.6mpg, 33.2mpg, 34.8mpg, and 38.6mpg on this 27mile loop.



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
727 Posts
The 3.0l is a GM in-house design, the 2.8l is (or at least I've been told) is based on a 20 year-old VM (think Izuzu) engine. It's no surprise that a modern engine would blow the older one away in terms of emissions and fuel economy as those are the things most manufacturers are going after these days.


What I am hoping is the re-design of the twins, that this engine and they 2.7l turbo four gas engine are the engines offered in the ZR2 and AT4 versions. It would be really nice if these had upgraded engines and with Jeep going to offer the six cylinder diesel in the Gladiator, it seems a necessity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,698 Posts
Would need to know more about the loop. Those aren't that much different than what I'd get on some 60 mph areas.
I can get 30 MPG in my V6 gasser if I keep it at 40 mph with no wind and level ground, no stops. I would like to see some comparison numbers for one of our trucks on that loop with V6 and diesel, and probably a Silverado with the 5.3L V8.

That said, the 3.0 L Diesel might be a great engine for our trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
114 Posts
Sounds like a closed loop of perfect driving conditions, more interested in real world numbers. You're looking at a significantly heavier/larger vehicle running essentially the same displacement motor, so very much doubt the actually numbers would be the same as the 2.8 let alone better. That being said, I'm getting 31 city/38 highway on a tuned 2.8, so no way a stock 3.0 will get that. Now the 3.0 does interest me from a tuning perspective, I'm sure there is a lot of potential there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,840 Posts
if it was a 2wd if was probably about the same weight as a 4wd Z71 Colorado, more foot print up front would be the only hindrance
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,840 Posts
here is a mpg test of the 2.7 turbo in the Sliver-Ado 4wd crew cab shot bed


Our test truck was a double-cab, standard-bed Silverado LT with four-wheel drive and a few optional packages. The two convenience packages added dual-zone automatic climate control, power adjustable heated seats, heated steering wheel, keyless entry and start, and a variety of other items. A few other features that could affect fuel mileage due to weight or aerodynamics were the 6-inch rectangular side steps, bedliner and trailering package. The base price for our test truck was $41,695 with destination charge, but it came in at $49,365 with all the added features.


The EPA claims the 2019 Chevrolet Silverado 1500's new turbocharged four-cylinder engine gets 19/22/20 mpg city/highway/combined, and we took it on a mileage loop to see how it does. Having the truck in Utah gave us the chance to test the vehicle at higher elevation. Our test loop started at around 4,500 feet, climbed to 5,400 feet and returned along the same path. It consisted of 20 percent city (45-mph speed limit with stoplights) 15 percent freeway (70-mph speed limit) and 65 percent highway (55-60-mph speed limit). The route was 68.1 miles according to Google Maps, and the truck measured 68.7 miles. The truck was tested empty except for the 185-pound driver.
Related: A Four-Cylinder Pickup? Chevrolet Takes a Gamble With 2019 Silverado 1500
Getting to the punch, the four-cylinder turbo exceeded the EPA estimates with a calculated 22.13 combined mpg. As is often the case, the computer in the truck displayed a slightly higher average at 23.4 mpg. It was clear that this engine loved to be in the 55-60-mph range, as the trip computer showed 25-26 mpg for that portion of the test. This Silverado's as-tested 22.13 mpg is the best calculated fuel mileage of any half-ton pickup truck I've tested on this route. While not the most fuel-efficient versions of each, it beats the 2019 Ford F-150 Limited with a high-output 3.5-liter EcoBoost at 18 mpg, 2019 Trail Boss LT with the 5.3-liter V-8 at 17 mpg and 2019 Ram 1500 Laramie Longhorn with the 5.7-liter Hemi (not equipped with eTorque) at 18 mpg.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,840 Posts
The 2020 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel is more powerful than the previous diesel half-ton Ram, but more importantly, it packs more power than the competitors. Well, to be exact, it packs more torque than the competitors, beating Ford’s 440 lb-ft and the 460 lb-ft offered by Chevrolet and GMC. In the horsepower category, GM still leads that with 277 horsepower, compared to Ram’s 260 and Ford’s 250.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
The 2.8 has a lot of updates from GM vs the older VM engines, including an updated and more efficient head, and engine management system.

With the cruise set on flat ground at 65 mph under ideal non stop conditions, my 4x4 truck has broken 50 MPG over a 25 mile freeway run. Such conditions are not real life, but it is fun when it happens. The round trip average for that one was over 34 MPG. Any diesel, when allowed to put along with a constant light load, will get stupid fuel economy.

No doubt the 3.0 will be very efficient but I would be surprised if it can move the bigger, heavier and more wind resistant FS truck and match the diesel twin's fuel economy in the real world, physics being what it is and all. Our trucks are smaller and lighter, and easier to move than a full size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
The 3.0l is a GM in-house design, the 2.8l is (or at least I've been told) is based on a 20 year-old VM (think Izuzu) engine. It's no surprise that a modern engine would blow the older one away in terms of emissions and fuel economy as those are the things most manufacturers are going after these days.


What I am hoping is the re-design of the twins, that this engine and they 2.7l turbo four gas engine are the engines offered in the ZR2 and AT4 versions. It would be really nice if these had upgraded engines and with Jeep going to offer the six cylinder diesel in the Gladiator, it seems a necessity.
The LWN 2.8L is based on the VMM A428, nothing to do with Isuzu though (Isuzu and GM had the joint venture to create the 6.6L Duramax and Isuzu makes/made a D-Max truck but that was the truck name and nothing to do with the engine it had). Saying it's based on a 20-year-old engine is like saying the 6.6 L5P is based on a ~20-year-old engine (LB7). There may be similarities today, but there are a lot of major differences between them. Saying the LWN isn't as efficient as other modern diesels because it has ties to an older design just doesn't hold up. The LWN is just as good as any other modern diesel in terms of emissions and fuel efficiency.

Jeep sticking with the 3.0 EcoDiesel is no surprise, the Gladiator and JL using it won't make them the first Jeeps with it. The Grand Cherokees have offered the 3.0 EcoD since 2014.

Not knowing the loop they used for testing it's hard to say how good or bad the 3.0 Duramax numbers are, but limiting them to 60MPH is probably the biggest red flag. I can cruise 2-lane county roads at 60MPH and get 35+MPG with my 4WD Canyon. I've done it for quite a distance.

The real test will be how they do at 75MPH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
No doubt the 3.0 will be very efficient but I would be surprised if it can move the bigger, heavier and more wind resistant FS truck and match the diesel twin's fuel economy in the real world, physics being what it is and all. Our trucks are smaller and lighter, and easier to move than a full size.
Indeed. Physics wins every time. Diesel has a specific amount of energy content, pushing an object down the road and through the wind takes a certain amount of power. The only ways to "win" over other vehicles are to either improve engine efficiency or reduce weight/drag. Diesels are already quite efficient at turning heat (combustion) into power with minimal losses. This is evidenced by how cool diesels run with minimal load, they don't shed/waste a lot of energy through the cooling system or exhaust as it is, with common-rail injection and multiple injections per cycle I'm not sure how much more efficient they can make them. Which is why manufacturers have been working on aero and weight savings as there are a number of improvements that can be made there that result in greater gains than spending more money on drivetrain efficiency improvements.

As such, if the Silverado/Sierra is heavier and less aerodynamic than the twins then there's really no way that it will be able to beat the twins when it comes to overall fuel efficiency. If the Silverado/Sierra provide better aero and similar weight then it wouldn't make much difference what engine it had, it would take less power to keep it moving down the road.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
181 Posts
One thing to note is that the 2.8 is an iron block with aluminum head, the 3.0 is all aluminum. The engines are probably very close to the same weight. The inline 6 is inherently smooth, so it is not penalized by balance shafts and other drag increasing paraphernalia, which will improve its efficiency.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Unless I missed it, there was no mention of the transmission. I'm guessing an 8 speed. My brothers Q5 diesel with a 3L consistently returns 30mpg in daily driving. He really likes to poke me with his numbers and it's annoying. 8 speeds allow for lower rpm city driving. I am sure our 2.8 could benefit greatly from 2 more ratios.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,487 Posts
Unless I missed it, there was no mention of the transmission. I'm guessing an 8 speed. My brothers Q5 diesel with a 3L consistently returns 30mpg in daily driving. He really likes to poke me with his numbers and it's annoying. 8 speeds allow for lower rpm city driving. I am sure our 2.8 could benefit greatly from 2 more ratios.
The 3.0 Duramax has the 10-speed automatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
The 10 speed makes a big difference when tuned for efficiency. It will shift up, depending on conditions, at a lower torque matched RPM. I find it ironic that GM hasn't used this tranny in the V6 twins with all the problems with 8-speed. This tranny was developed in a joint effort between GM and Ford. Ford is using the 10 speed in the Ranger and upper models as GM is. The 3.0 in the 1500 peeks my interest. Mileage and tow capacity are highlights.
Howard
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top