I get 25 mpg in our 25 denali with the 5.3 around town doing service calls. The 3.5 ecoboost does 19 on the same loops. The ecoboost does 19 under all conditions actually.

All the TFL test proves is that it takes about the same power and weight to move around the trucks despite size. At speed if the 2.7 was in boost that is where you lose the economy.

The gearing in the ford rear is probably more favorable (seems they like 3.55 and 3.73) vs the 3.42 which would lug any engine down more. It really isn't close to apples to apples but does prove the point that I've always said... you don't really gain much efficiency with a mid size. I've had modern full-size trucks run side by side and you're splitting hairs with all the gas power plants.

 

I got the mid sized because although I live out in a rural area, I take my truck into urban areas and on car ferries. A full sized truck is a PITA in those settings. I've owned a Chevy full sized and the Colorado is so much easier to park, maneuver on the ferry, in garages, etc. Rarely need an 8 foot bed anymore and I'm set for an over the wheel wells load. I don't care about the gas mileage.

 

The AT4X is also a bit less aerodynamic than the Ford at the very least due to the extra ground clearance.

Simply too many variables between the two to say definitively why one is more or less efficient than the other, it's likely a combination of differences that all contribute some.

 

That ford probably has the active air dam that lowers up front at speed.

 

Its always a variety of reasons. I suspect gearing is one of the bigger issues with any colorado on 33s.

 

...I'll take the MPG hit to NOT have to drive around in a fugly POS....🤣

 

Weight of tires can make a big difference. Just because they are 33s doesn't mean they weigh the same. AT4X tires are C load rating so definitely heavier than a P.

Also rear end gearing.

 

Has the EPA dropped the requirments that you have to have 3.0 or smaller motors available and sell X percentage over all?
which is why everyone has a 3.0 or smaller motor and some put out more than thier counter part v8 that they replaced. like the huricane vs hemi

why not take the Ford F-150 eco-boost against the Canyon at4X? that would be a more comparable test.

 

why not take the Ford F-150 eco-boost against the Canyon at4X? that would be a more comparable test.

They don't have an EcoBoost in their fleet anymore, the Tremor is a truck they bought recently. Same with the AT4X.

 

so it is all just click bait, like lets make a video we need more money, you drive the Porsche and I will drive the yugo and we will compare them...

 

I haven't watched this video yet, but do they discuss gearing? I bet at least 1/2 that MPG difference could be accounted for in gearing. And the other 1/2 half from variations that could never be controlled. Also speed is not the same as acceleration. They might be traveling at the speed limit, but how fast did they get to that limit? That's where engines burn gas.

At the end of the day, 100 miles is 100 miles and not a year's worth of miles. A longer test would be far more telling of real mileage.

If that nearly 2 MPG difference stayed over the course of a year (which i HIGHLY doubt), it would cost the GMC owner an extra $144 each year to not have to drive a Ford. Seems worth it. 😂

 

I haven't watched this video yet, but do they discuss gearing? I bet at least 1/2 that MPG difference could be accounted for in gearing. And the other 1/2 half from variations that could never be controlled. Also speed is not the same as acceleration. They might be traveling at the speed limit, but how fast did they get to that limit? That's where engines burn gas.

At the end of the day, 100 miles is 100 miles and not a year's worth of miles. A longer test would be far more telling of real mileage.

If that nearly 2 MPG difference stayed over the course of a year (which i HIGHLY doubt), it would cost the GMC owner an extra $144 each year to not have to drive a Ford. Seems worth it. 😂

Thats the other thing people don't realize either. The money savings going from 16-18 or 18 20 mpg is not as great once you crest into the 20s. It does diminish as you move up the ladder.

I'll gladly spend that 144$ first that though.

 

Problems with the Test
2 Entirely Different Vehicles (so unfair Aerodynamic Comparison)
100 Miles Test is only a very small test to truly compare overall MPG

 

FWIW, two months ago I traded a 4X4 crew cab, 2014 F150/5.0/3.55 gears for my 2025 Trail Boss. Everyday driving the Ford was 16-17 mpg. The Colorado about 19. On the road the Ford was 18-19 mpg. I drove a 500 mile round trip last week with the Colorado and got 24 mpg.

I did my research and went into this knowing that the NEW 1/2 tons from Ford, Chevy, and Toyota will basically match the mid-size trucks for fuel mileage. I don't find that fuel mileage surprising at all. The Ford probably has 3.31 gears. I have a buddy with a 2025 Chevy 1/2 ton Trail Boss with the 5.3 and 3.21 gears that beats my Colorado slightly. The Ford 5.0 with 3.73 gears is pretty potent. With 3.31's it's WEAK. Mine with 3.55's was just OK.

But Ranger and Colorado will come close to matching 1/2 ton capability. In fact, my new Colorado is rated to tow exactly the same as my old Ford and comes within 100 lbs of the same payload. The Colorado is significantly more capable than the 2002 F150 I owned.

I just didn't want a big truck any longer. I did look at and price comparably equipped Ford, Chevy and Toyota 1/2 tons. While fuel mileage wasn't that much different, neither was performance. And the 1/2 tons were about $15,000 more. Even with worse fuel mileage I can buy a lot of gas with $15,000.

 

Well, my ZR2 was rated at 16 mpg, but typically gets around 20mpg. Unless of course, I'm hauling my travel trailer.

My 23 F-150 with a 3.5L EB maybe got a little better mileage but it felt like I was driving a bus. I hated driving it.

No complaints.

 

The f150 has a great 10 speeds

 

GM and Ford made the 10 Speed Auto Transmission that both of them use
Each just uses some different supplied parts in their versions

 

we need a SIMPLE 2 dr standard cab with a NA V-6 no frills lower price!!!!

 

That would be a nice package, but the closest I could come to that was my 2022 Colorado LT CCSB 3.6L LGZ V6 in 2WD. I have had 4WD and AWD and still have that in our SUV.

For my truck purposes of hauling occasional cargo and often driving a 660 to 700 mile round trip 8 or 9 times a Summer/Fall up to the cabin with power equipment and maybe a utility trailer I have all I need.
Most times on the trip up to the cabin on 70% interstate 75MPH and 30% 60MPH, 2 to 4 people and +700 lbs I will easily get 25 to 26MPG. On trips with less cargo (maybe 400 lbs and 2 people) I can often get +27 MPG.

On a number of these same trips and less cargo with 2 people I have gotten 28 to 29 MPG.

The 3.6L LGZ V6 is a decent MPG performer and I don't baby it . . . I drive it like I need to and use cruise control a good part of the time with or without A/C.

Fuel efficiency has a lot to do with the use/case a person needs.
There really isn't a "one-size-fits-all" in even a midsize truck like Colorado/Canyon in vehicle configuration and power train choices.
But being in 4 Colorado trucks 2005 to my 2022 as a new owner in all of them this midsize does what I need it to.
Even when I had to haul load after load of building supplies up to the cabin over 330 miles one way.

 

Some people are looking at this a bit wrong. It's not just gas mileage.

1. Double the 2.7L size (=5.4L) just for reference. It's a large displacement 4 cyl engine making power and torque at less emissions but acting as a larger engine. Would I have preferred NA....sure (not at same HP/TQ-would expect 400HP/450TQ levels though from V8)...but I LOVE TURBOS. More air is going to use more gas...they are infact equal motors in compare.
2. Aerodynamics are not same....always hard to compare two different vehicles. No two differing brand/model cars in same category are ever same mpg. The higher the lift...the more resistance in most cases. FRONTAL aero was not too different but the GMC is higher.
3. Did the test GMC also have the updated fuel injector programming completed at time of video? I just had mine done....looking forward to seeing if MPG improves at all.

That said, I didn't buy this truck for MPG. It's a truck....it's going to work hard and look Top Gun doing it.

 

Some people are looking at this a bit wrong. It's not just gas mileage.

1. Double the 2.7L size (=5.4L) just for reference. It's a large displacement 4 cyl engine making power and torque at less emissions but acting as a larger engine. Would I have preferred NA....sure (not at same HP/TQ-would expect 400HP/450TQ levels though from V8)...but I LOVE TURBOS. More air is going to use more gas...they are infact equal motors in compare.
2. Aerodynamics are not same....always hard to compare two different vehicles. No two differing brand/model cars in same category are ever same mpg. The higher the lift...the more resistance in most cases. FRONTAL aero was not too different but the GMC is higher.
3. Did the test GMC also have the updated fuel injector programming completed at time of video? I just had mine done....looking forward to seeing if MPG improves at all.

That said, I didn't buy this truck for MPG. It's a truck....it's going to work hard and look Top Gun doing it.

When you said the GMC Canyon was higher/taller than the Ford F150 I had to look back at the video thumbnail to confirm you are right!

 

I hope you all are not going by the dash display to tell you MPG. You must calculate gallons put in at the pump and miles driven over a period to be certain. The dash only estimates the MPG for you. Beside that, all of the other factors mentioned as well. One guy can't compare to another as you have different driving habits, routes, etc. One guy with two different trucks, driving the same routes, using a calculator, can have useful data.

 

That is why I stated . . .
" Fuel efficiency has a lot to do with the use/case a person needs. "

And. . . I always hand calculate - - -

Look at the receipt in the 2nd picture. . . 351.3 miles / 11.977 gallons.
Even if the fill up at the pump was a little off... say 12.3 gallons that is still 28.56 MPG.

 

I've got a 2019 ZR2 3.6 lt V6 non turbo with 33" tires 4.10 gears and Trifecta super tune. In Eco mode, cruise control armed but not on 13.7 miles per gallon freeway and street city driving. Flat freeway a little better long run 160 miles average speed 72 mph on cruise mileage up to 14.8 mpg. Never got advertised 17 mpg. Only coming down to Redding from Mt Lassen trail head will it drop into 4 cyl mode and then get 40 mpg. Round trip.

 

I test drove a 2023 Z71 Colorado with the V6 and that is what I wanted at the time. After several attempts of trying to order one through 2 different Chevy Dearlerships I get a call 6 mths later that they have one they want me to check out. It was only missing three of the items that I wanted on what I had tried to order. Final result I ended up buying the blue 2024 Z71 Chevy Colorado, with the turbo in it and I have to say I love it. Also in the cities I get maybe 20 to 22 miles per gallon and on the highway I have gotten all the way up to 28 miles per gallon with using the cruise control uphill downhill didn't matter. The Turbo is really fun sometimes it catches me by surprise when I take off but I love it. I also get a lot of comments on the color which I originally wanted the red tin coat.

Sorry if I veered away from the original post.

 

They never made a 23 Colorado with a V6. Only Gen 2 (pre 2023).

 

Before I pulled a trailer, my '23 WT averaged about 24.5 (mostly highway miles) per the system.
The higher torque at lower RPM's isn't just for fun. It also makes towing easier. You don't have to rev it up as much to get it moving, making it feel much better and easier to get into traffic.

If you really want better mileage, the 3.42 should do better than the 3.55 or 3.72 with the same transmission gearing. I had a 3.08 in a '87 Chevy van with a 350 TBI. It would get 18-20 on the highway and had no problem moving at much lower power ratings.

 

So many factors.

Back in the earl 80s, I was driving a Ford LTDII with 302 V8.

I wanted to replace my air filter, but couldn't find one locally: Literally, the air filter for a Mustang 302, or anything else Ford fit the 302 into did not fit my LTDII.

I drove back home one Friday, 240 miles, to see family. Got about 17 MPG as I remember. It was late, I am sure I was going faster than the 55 MPH speed limit in place at the time. Pretty much all backroad highways, no interstate at the time. I found an air filter back home, replaced it. On drive back on Sunday, I drove the speed limit and got over 22 MPG. No one would ever believe that car could get that sort of mileage, but between the air filter and the speeds I drove, it made that much difference.

And, I got the 17 MPG while driving downhill (south) and the 22 MPG driving uphill (north), in case you wondered. (All in Louisiana, so elevation change was pretty negligible. )

 

The 10 speed is god awful too. GM won't use the ZF because the 8 speed was reverse engineered off it. Personally I wasn't impressed with the ZF either as it is also known to have the same problems... just less units are affected it seems... but if you start looking a little, harsh 1-2 shifts, shudders, lazy shifts are all present across the makes they're used in.

They all last around 150k miles before they're toast. And don't listen that the fluid is lifetime fill. Thats just dumb.