Diesel Canyon/Colorado 31mpg rated

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/09/2016-chevy-colorado-duramax-31-mpg/

Imagine one with a tune/delete. Hello 35-38mpg truck that can tow on the weekends. This is 110% my next truck, been waiting for it since they announced it a few years back.

Dietcoke wrote: Imagine one with a tune/delete.

And this is what is going to get Diesel non-commercial vehicles banned in the US.

GM Press Release wrote: Smart diesel exhaust braking enhances vehicle control and reduces brake wear by reducing the need for breaking on downgrades.

Every damn time...

Also, an automatic truck needs column shift. Floor shift is a needless waste of space. Without floor shift, you'd have room to toss your shotgun or chainsaw in the front floorboard.

now imagine one with 2wd, a stick shift and standard cab...oh wait....

OMG WANT

Knurled wrote:

Dietcoke wrote: Imagine one with a tune/delete.

And this is what is going to get Diesel non-commercial vehicles banned in the US.

I dunno about banned, but I've heard they're really starting to crack down on nonEPA compliant tuning.

Ohh and make mine the 6.5' bed crew cab.

What will the towing capacity be?

Tyler H wrote:

GM Press Release wrote: Smart diesel exhaust braking enhances vehicle control and reduces brake wear by reducing the need for breaking on downgrades.

But will the break on flat land or upgrades? I've never noticed vehicles break an inordinate amount of times on a downgrade over any other surface.

I believe they meant braking, not breaking.

yupididit wrote: What will the towing capacity be?

The press release says 7700 lbs.

Still an expensive truck, but a good competitor for the Dodge Little Diesel.

My wish list is a NV2500 diesel and a Jeep Wrangler diesel.

I'm still surprised we can't get 30mpg V8 trucks.

That's good numbers, but given the current diesel prices in my area, the addition in price of the truck, and the gas V6 rated for 26, I'd have to drive something like 200,000 miles before I broke even on it.

And if it used DEF in addition to the fuel, I never will.

I just don't understand the fascination with diesel. I'm glad they offer it, but I just don't see the point.

I hate the bar in the truck bed.

ultraclyde wrote: That's good numbers, but given the current diesel prices in my area, the addition in price of the truck, and the gas V6 rated for 26, I'd have to drive something like 200,000 miles before I broke even on it. And if it used DEF in addition to the fuel, I never will. I just don't understand the fascination with diesel. I'm glad they offer it, but I just don't see the point.

Yeah, it seems to be about bragging rights more than anything else. Which, as an enthusiast, I suppose I can't argue with. I've chosen cars because they a half-second faster in the quarter mile than others, and that doesn't have any real-world significance unless you are racing. So if someone wants to pick something because it gets better mileage, so be it.

ultraclyde wrote: That's good numbers, but given the current diesel prices in my area,

In my area, the Cult of Diesel joins a co-op and brews their own using all of the fryer grease from the local eateries.

http://www.biofuels.coop/fuels

Also, the photo shows a Z71 package truck.

What's the torque difference between the gas and diesel?

Torque is analogous to towing, and that used to be the reason people bought diesel trucks.

Appleseed wrote: What's the torque difference between the gas and diesel? Torque is analogous to towing, and that used to be the reason people bought diesel trucks.

I told myself I wanted a diesel because I tow, but I really wanted it because it was fast.

ultraclyde wrote: I just don't understand the fascination with diesel. I'm glad they offer it, but I just don't see the point.

Diesel is cheaper than regular gas in some states. Here I pay way less driving a diesel car and I get great gas milage.

Appleseed wrote: Torque is analogous to towing, and that used to be the reason people bought diesel trucks.

2015 Chevy Colorado diesel: 181 hp, 369 lb-ft, 25 combined MPG
1984 Ford IDI diesel: 170 hp, 338 lb-ft, 18 ish combined MPG

(I should leave out the sarcastic 'we've come a long way in 30 years' joke)

I believe that in 1982 GM released the first 'passeger' diesel pickup, and in the eighties, you bought a diesel for MPG. The big block gas engines made more power, but the diesels made double the gas mileage at only slightly less power.

In reply to Robbie:

4cyl vs the IDI

Appleseed wrote: What's the torque difference between the gas and diesel? Torque is analogous to towing, and that used to be the reason people bought diesel trucks.

Okay, so furthering my research, there is a significant torque difference, but not that big a difference in tow rating.

The gas V6 is rated at 305HP, 269 ft-lbs torque, and tows 7000 lbs. The diesel is 181 HP and 369 ft-lbs, rated for 7700 lbs towing.

So I guess that is a great test of the old HP vs Torque being better on the street debate.

Car & Driver is speculating that light footed drivers might see 35 on the highway, and near 30 in town. I'm not sure what they're basing it on, but it sounds optomistic. Having said that, it will be interesting to see what wider testing shows when they start to hit the market. Still not sure the diesel is any better for me, but if you tow a 7000lb trailer a lot, I guess it is. Which is the same old story.

Has anybody seen confirmation that they are using DEF? I can't imagine them NOT at this point, but I have yet to see it mentioned.

Robbie wrote:

Appleseed wrote: Torque is analogous to towing, and that used to be the reason people bought diesel trucks.

2015 Chevy Colorado diesel: 181 hp, 369 lb-ft, 25 combined MPG 1984 Ford IDI diesel: 170 hp, 338 lb-ft, 18 ish combined MPG (I should leave out the sarcastic 'we've come a long way in 30 years' joke) I believe that in 1982 GM released the first 'passeger' diesel pickup, and in the eighties, you bought a diesel for MPG. The big block gas engines made more power, but the diesels made double the gas mileage at only slightly less power.

From the author of the C&D review, who has a 460 F250:

The 2.8-liter Duramax diesel four-cylinder in the Colorado is decidedly un-thirsty. But it packs 369 lb-ft of torque--just 26 lb-ft less than my 7.5-liter Ford. Sure, the Colorado diesel's 181 hp is rather unimpressive, but so is the 245 hp rating of my Planetary Thrust Unit F-250.

Soo...460V8 torque from a 2.8L four that gets, wht, 3 times the MPG unloaded? Not bad...

Don't get me wrong, as I love that this truck now exists, but I kinda feel like its thunder was stolen long before it ever existed by the 3.0 Ram that gets very close to the same MPG while being better at basically everything except MAYBE parking (and it probably depends more on visibility than anything else, because the Colorado is HUGE). It's kinda the same deal as 'v6 ranger vs v6 f150' used to be, except back then at least the smaller truck was actually small.

The first time I saw the Colorado in person, I almost didn't notice it because I was looking for Chevy's new midsize truck and the ones they had on display were absolutely massive. Easily as big on the outside as the full sizes of 1 or 2 generations back.

So yeah, a diesel Colorado is a cool truck, but most of them are going to be spec'd out to be just another big truck, and if i'm buying a 30mpg big truck i'm buying a Ram. Just my .02.

yupididit and ultraclyde:

I get it, but who really cares how big the engine is when you are comparing both power and fuel consumption?

And I'm also not saying this engine isn't impressive. I'm saying that the original diesels were sold for their fuel consumption advantage, not their power advantage. Just like this diesel.

I was just adding to what you were saying. But, okay whatever you want to say Sir!

In reply to ultraclyde:

To be fair, if you got worse than 8mpg with a 460, you were trying to pull the moon at WOT