[TeamKingsley]

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.

 

[FireNative2]

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!

 

[FireNative2]

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.

View attachment 491897 View attachment 491898

Dang thats some great mpg numbers! I have a 2021 GMC Canyon Elevation standard V6 CCSB and with just me, a loaded cab, loaded bed, and towing a motorcycle trailer and 750ibs motorcycle on the highway doing 600 miles to the Smokey's from south Louisiana with cruise control at 65mph I have never gotten past 26mpg 23mpg is probably the average. In town it averages 19mpg, with no traffic and cruise control at 35mpg to 60mpg

 

[WILLY59]

In the video TFLtrucks did a 100-mile loop around Denver with a GMC Canyon AT4X and a Ford F150. So, a midsized off-road truck with 4x4, and 33" tires and the 2.7L turbo 4-cylinder vs the full-sized truck with 4x4, 33" tires, and a naturally aspirated 5.0L V8. The V8 got 22.7mpg and the 2.7L got 20.8mpg.

My guess is since the turbo makes power at much lower rpm it uses more power when compared to similar use in the non-turbo v8. 2.7L 310hp and 430tq vs 5.0L 400hp and 410tq. So, the v8 has 90 more hp and 20 less tq vs the 2.7L so with more torque and less weight the 3rd gens should have a more "sporty"/responsive feel after the full second of turbo lag.

I know its not apples to apples. Its not a gm midsized vs a gm full sized with a 2.7L vs 2.7L then with a 2.7L vs a 5.3L but it is a lighter, shorter in height and length, narrower, smaller truck with 4x4, and 33" tires with a turbo 4 cylinder with 90 less hp and 20 more tq VS a heavier, taller, longer, wider, truck with 4x4, 33" tires and a naturally aspirated V8 with 90 more hp and 20 less tq and the heavier, taller, wider, longer truck with 90 more hp and 20 less tq, and a naturally aspirated V8 got 2 mpg more

My point is so gm decided to put the more "fun" turbo 4-cylinder motor instead of the better mpg and hence better emissions V8 truck as the turbo 4 has better tq at lower rpms which means it accelerates fast then the V8 would.

This was also done side by doing the speed limit so no differences in variables.

This pretty much ends the debate of if gm would have put a 5.3L naturally aspirated V8 in the 3rd gens would they get better mpg. With that said i would guess the advantage of the turbo 4 vs the naturally aspirated v8 is it is more versatile. In that you could take it easy on the accelerator and get good mpg, or you could smash the accelerator and have fun at lower rpms.

And when compared to gm's 5.3L V8 which has 355hp and 383tq or their 4.8L V8 302hp and 305tq. The 5.3L would have 45 more HP but at higher rpms, so my guess is they made a more modern lighter motor with almost as high HP, (only 45hp short), but has 47 more TQ numbers and at lower rpms that can be more versatile in use being more "fun" if you mash the accelerator or get almost as good mpg is you "baby" it

Any thoughts?

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.

 

[GraniteBlue05]

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.

 

[GraniteBlue05]

Dang thats some great mpg numbers! I have a 2021 GMC Canyon Elevation standard V6 CCSB and with just me, a loaded cab, loaded bed, and towing a motorcycle trailer and 750ibs motorcycle on the highway doing 600 miles to the Smokey's from south Louisiana with cruise control at 65mph I have never gotten past 26mpg 23mpg is probably the average. In town it averages 19mpg, with no traffic and cruise control at 35mpg to 60mpg

Well of course I and no one ever gets the same stellar MPG. But thanks, I have gotten really good MPG. . . but also have gotten 20 to 23 MPG. All it takes in my case is to add in 20 to 30 miles of rolling 4% to 6% hills and long grades on some of my drives.
Or wind, road construction, etc, etc.Or tire choices and other options.

In -10F to -15F winter around town I've gotten 14 to 16 MPG .

But yeah, I still think the N/A 3/6L does well for my uses in all the conditions I have used it for. Including some really heavy loads in Tow Mode.

 

[Max's Colorado]

In the video TFLtrucks did a 100-mile loop around Denver with a GMC Canyon AT4X and a Ford F150. So, a midsized off-road truck with 4x4, and 33" tires and the 2.7L turbo 4-cylinder vs the full-sized truck with 4x4, 33" tires, and a naturally aspirated 5.0L V8. The V8 got 22.7mpg and the 2.7L got 20.8mpg.

My guess is since the turbo makes power at much lower rpm it uses more power when compared to similar use in the non-turbo v8. 2.7L 310hp and 430tq vs 5.0L 400hp and 410tq. So, the v8 has 90 more hp and 20 less tq vs the 2.7L so with more torque and less weight the 3rd gens should have a more "sporty"/responsive feel after the full second of turbo lag.

I know its not apples to apples. Its not a gm midsized vs a gm full sized with a 2.7L vs 2.7L then with a 2.7L vs a 5.3L but it is a lighter, shorter in height and length, narrower, smaller truck with 4x4, and 33" tires with a turbo 4 cylinder with 90 less hp and 20 more tq VS a heavier, taller, longer, wider, truck with 4x4, 33" tires and a naturally aspirated V8 with 90 more hp and 20 less tq and the heavier, taller, wider, longer truck with 90 more hp and 20 less tq, and a naturally aspirated V8 got 2 mpg more

My point is so gm decided to put the more "fun" turbo 4-cylinder motor instead of the better mpg and hence better emissions V8 truck as the turbo 4 has better tq at lower rpms which means it accelerates fast then the V8 would.

This was also done side by doing the speed limit so no differences in variables.

This pretty much ends the debate of if gm would have put a 5.3L naturally aspirated V8 in the 3rd gens would they get better mpg. With that said i would guess the advantage of the turbo 4 vs the naturally aspirated v8 is it is more versatile. In that you could take it easy on the accelerator and get good mpg, or you could smash the accelerator and have fun at lower rpms.

And when compared to gm's 5.3L V8 which has 355hp and 383tq or their 4.8L V8 302hp and 305tq. The 5.3L would have 45 more HP but at higher rpms, so my guess is they made a more modern lighter motor with almost as high HP, (only 45hp short), but has 47 more TQ numbers and at lower rpms that can be more versatile in use being more "fun" if you mash the accelerator or get almost as good mpg is you "baby" it

Any thoughts?

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.

 

[BlueZedR2]

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

* facepalm *

 

[littleblazer]

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.

I do that too though the denali has the old man package so the bed side is actually lower than my Z71!

The new Denali is a boat. In the era of the first gens though the fullsizes were substantially more nimble despite being larger. It honestly isn't even fair to compare the two anymore.

 

[commonme]

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.

 

[Dash Riprock]

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 used to have a 2003 Chevy S-10 with 4.3L and 4sp auto trans and it got around maybe 12 to 13mpg around town and around 18 to 19mpg out on the highway.

Of course I've got a right foot made of lead so I'm sure that was the problem... that and I had a fairly aggressive tune from Blackbear Tuning and it ran great.

I frequently beat other drivers to the next traffic stop so I was pretty happy with it.

 

[gherbert]

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

 

[Acrtryx]

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).

 

[noreel]

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 love it

 

[CaryBosse]

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. )

 

[cb4017]

The f150 has a great 10 speeds

Having owned a Ranger and a F-150 with the 10-speed I can tell you they are noting special. Neither is the Colorado 8-speed.

The best modern auto I've had by far was the ZF 8-speed in a Gladiator. If GM would put that ZF in the Colorado they would have a winner.

 

[604-ZR2]

Having owned a Ranger and a F-150 with the 10-speed I can tell you they are noting special. Neither is the Colorado 8-speed.

The best modern auto I've had by far was the ZF 8-speed in a Gladiator. If GM would put that ZF in the Colorado they would have a winner.

I know the answer is money and that GM is cheap but I'll never understand why they didn't put the ZF 8 speed in the 2nd and 3rd gen trucks. Especially after the problems in the 2nd gen. Seems like they would have paid for themselves at this point.

 

[littleblazer]

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.

 

[hyperv6]

My mpg in town on secondary roads worth stop and go is 21. The highway has been 26 mpg.

The wife’s 21 Acadia 3.6 gets 22-23 around town and highway it gets 31-32 depending on the speed. Gearing makes a big difference.

If you have a limited slip you get the 3:42 gear and it cuts into mpg.

Also the Acadia is AWD but if in 2WD it is fwd. less drivetrain drag and the rear system disengages the drive shaft.

 

[commonme]

@hyperv6 Uhm. All else being equal, the 3:42 should get better mileage and reduced low end torque than the 3:55 or 3:72.