Fiat-Chrysler’s Ram has been making a lot of noise about its Ram EcoDiesel. Sure, it’s the first diesel in a half-ton pickup truck in what is seemingly ever. But is it actually any good?
Below, we compare the 3.0L EcoDiesel V6 with GM’s 2.8L Duramax I4 in the midsize 2016 Chevy Colorado and 2016 GMC Canyon. Yes, it’s purely an on-paper comparison, but it provides a rather healthy perspective.
| METRIC: | 2.8L DURAMAX I4 TURBO DIESEL | 3.0L ECODIESEL TURBO DIESEL V6 | + / –Â COLORADO/CANYON DIESEL |
|---|---|---|---|
| HORSEPOWER: | 181 | 240 | -59 |
| TORQUE: | 369 | 420 | -51 |
| MPG CITY: | 23 (EST) | 21 | +2 |
| MPG HWY: | 30 (EST) | 29 | +1 |
| MPG COMBINED: | 26 (EST) | 24 | +2 |
So, the Ram EcoDiesel has more power (59 horsepower) and more torque (51 pound-feet), that much is expected given that it is 0.2 liters and two cylinders larger than the baby Duramax. But what about fuel economy?
GM has yet to release preliminary or official fuel economy figures for the Duramax-powered Colorado and Canyon, rumors have it that the trucks will attain at least 23 MPG city and 30 MPG highway for a 26 combined MPG. Such fuel economy figures would surely top those of the full-size Ram EcoDiesel. But since the fuel economy figures are by no means official, all we can do is wait for GM to release them.
What do you expect fuel economy to be for the Colorado Duramax and Canyon Duramax? Talk to us in the comments.
Comments
Go for the gusto GM, give us more MPG with 25/35, 28 combined. Or give us the above guessed at figures of 23/30 26 combined with 210 hp 400 ft lb torque.
The wait for the diesel is killing me…!
Kind of what I was thinking. 1 or 2 mile pg with less power , less torque, smaller load capacity with about the same price point is not going to cut it.
Considering the EcoDiesel weighs about 2000lbs more (that’s almost the equivalent of an NA Miata) the Duramax isn’t actually all that great looking when all specs are put down on paper. Your chart should be more comprehensive, half your numbers are estimates, so why no give an educated guesstimate for hauling, towing, curb weight, you now, the specs that matter to trucks more than than any other vehicle.
More than anything the oil burner Colorado will be faster because it’s lighter, but other than that GM should have stepped up a little better.
It should be able to tow about the same 8000+lbs as the EcoDiesel which is good. And Duramax payload should bump the Colorado from its 1400lbs closer to the EcoDiesel’s 1600lbs
It’s a good start for a diesel midsize, but there is a ton of room for improvement.
Yes, we would love to include the hauling, towing, and curb weight. But there’s one problem: while the fuel economy figures are educated guesses based on various forms of information and other publications, the performance measurements would be complete guesses at this point, which I feel would be a dis-service to our readers.
I thought this engine combo was already in use in Isuzu pu’s for the last 3 years. Albeit with different turbos and such. SO relatively accurate info should be out there.
Those MPG values just aren’t good enough. Also, the highway mileage difference is only 1MPG. That is really not good enough. You also need to show the curb weights for the two. The significantly lower mass and the smaller output engine of the GM should see better than 1mpg increase on the highway, versus the RAM
Oh no! This is not good. This is embarrassing. I don’t really know diesel engines, all my experience are with gas engines, but that’s where I’m drawing my opinion from. And looking at these stats, they are extremely disappointing to me. GM has always had the best engines, something that they really show pride in. They always had more power, and better fuel economy than the competition.
The 2010 V6 Camaro had almost as much hp as the 2010 V8 Mustang GT, (only a -11 hp less, and -52lbs less torque) but got +2 mpg more city and +5 mpg hwy. Lets jump up to Camaro SS, now it’s apples to apples, right. They get the exact same mpg, the SAME, but the GM has +111 more hp, with +95 lbs more torque. And this scale works on almost anything their line up, (except any more, like the Malibu and lack of a 3.6L like it used to have in it).
Then you compare GM’s engineering versus the asinine engineering of Dodge, and I’m left speechless, this is the outcome? I know these numbers are speculation, however they are often are correct. And if this the case, may I recommend they scrap this engine and try again, this is sub-par. I know GM has spent a lot on interior and exterior design, well done, but lets not skimp on the heart of the beast. The true soul and trade mark of GM, their engines. And don’t say they can only make v8s because if you look around how many Cavaliers and S10s do you see soldiering on, postal trucks still rocking it and clapped out Astro vans converted into ice cream trucks.
I get GM is behind on diesels, with converting 454s and ridding on the coattails of Isuzu all these years, but if GM wants Europe and wants us to get on board, then they need to spend some serious coin on their own engines, and stop subletting to Isuzu. Remember when GM was putting their TH400 into Rolls Royces and Jaguars, and all their emission systems into Land Rovers and whatever else. I want to see GM engineer their own diesel engine, because I think they can do a far superior job at it. Image Isuzu putting VortecTurbos (not a real thing) into their trucks, and a baby VortTech in the Volt, what kind of mpg would a hybrid diesel get?
Okay, i’m getting off my soap box now, just not really not happy with gm only putting engines in their vehicles that just meet the standard and not going above like they used to. Like a 2.0L turbo in a sonic, a 3.6L in a Malibu, 6.2L in a Tahoe or Silverado, and ect.
Guys,
I just want to re-iterate what I mentioned in the article: there is a good chance that the actual numbers for the 2016 Colorado Duramax/Canyon Duramax will be higher.
These are guesstimates, though educated ones.
I get that it’s just a guesstimate, I do, and coupled with the lack luster performance figures gm has been releasing across the line up, makes me think you’re really close. I think you’re dead on with the city and lets say you’re off on the highway and it turns out to be 3 more miles. The trade off for lack of power still doesn’t out way the mpg and size of the Colorado. Those figures would be insufficient to be a rock star and GM needs this to work. It has to be much more for people to switch to diesel and for people to walk away from their other brands of choice.
It needs to be like the Dodge Hellcat, if you’re in the market for that type of vehicle, then 700 horses for $60k is a blatant obvious choice for that customer. There are three main categories the customers look at when buying a purpose built vehicle like the Colorado. Price, Power, and MPGs, and GM has to smoke the competition in two of these categories for it not to fade away in the noise. Just one won’t cut it
all things begin equal, i would prefer a small inline 4 over a complicated small V 6 any day. It was the beauty of the Ram and CUmmins, and it will be the beauty of the ColoMax.
But I have read reports of the Toyota 3.0 getting 36 plus mpg highway. i would assume this 2.8 Isuzu motor could do as well in a similar sized truck.
i assume you missed the fact that both these engine are based on vm motori engines the 3.0 liter was originally design with the help of gm as a 2.9 for use in Cadillac in Europe but never used
and the 2.8 you will see in the colarodo is also based on a vm engine although much modified for this use by gm and built in there own plant
until gm sold its half pf the company to fiat they both owned the company
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/07/how-jeep-ended-up-with-a-gm-diesel/
Hey Turbofire I’m not sure how familiar you are with GM’s diesel program but GM actually builds every Duramax at their Ohio plant! Although GM did partner with Izusu in the late 90’s to build the original 6.6 L. Duramax GM has improved and upgraded the engines in house, and even they do still get some help from Izusu it’s OK cause GM actually owns the Izusu company now! I totally agree with what you said about GM’s gas engines always being the best, if you look at what they’ve done with the 6.6 L. Duramax since it debuted in 2001 they are putting a nice gap in the competition as far as building the best Diesel engines! There’s a reason that every other year Ford comes out with a new Powerstroke Diesel while the Duramax has always been a 6.6 L. It’s because Ford or International can’t build anything to compete with the Duramax!!!
@turbofire- your chevy v6 has the same amount of power as the mustang v8 because they’re the same liters/size wise. You can have a v4 be as strong as a v12 if theyre both 5.0 liters. – name calling removed by moderator –
The Ram is putting up some good mpg. Some reports of owner getting 39mpg on the highway. Hopefully GM takes note to a 8 speed Trans like Ram. Only time will tell.
I agree with a lot of what has already been said. If the Ram is achieving 29+ MPG in a heavier truck with a larger engine then I honestly believe that the smaller and lighter Colorado/Canyon should be be capable of achieving more than just 1 extra MPG over the larger Ram. I agree that closer to 35 really should be more of a target. It would be nice to see a little more towing capability as well. if not, why would people really seriously consider a Colorado/Canyon with a diesel when they can get a full size truck with about the same fuel numbers and a much roomier interior and more capability?
It is not enough to just toss a Diesel engine in a midsize truck and brag about being the only one with a diesel. That won’t last long. Nissan is already venturing in to diesel territory by putting a cummins in their Titan and are now planning to put a smaller Cummins in their Frontier. Now that is exciting! GM needs to put a little more thought in to this engine release and they need to do it quickly. They are poised to be the first to release a diesel in a midsize truck in the U.S. market and so they need to do it right, but they need to hurry. If the come out with less than stellar number I believe they will push a lot over to the Nissan Frontier. I personally believe Nissan will have a marketing edge just because of the die-hard reliability and recognition that Cummins is bring to the table. If GM wants my business then their smaller truck better get much better MPG numbers than the Ram Eco Diesel. They need to stand out with numbers that turn heads.
Americans won’t give up that much size and power for 1mpg. That’s the whole reason Ford and Chrysler abandoned the mini truck segment in the first place.
So let’s hope the difference in MPG is bigger than 1. With a manual , it seems mid 30s could have been achievable. But GM understood Americans don’t know how to drive, so no manual will be offered.
Diesels are still the way to go. Real world power, and MPG, are both far and away better than gasoline engines.
you know they detune the motor if it’s mated with a manual right?
look overseas and they lose 45 ft-lb of torque if you get the manual, and with modern automatics being so efficient and given the fact that nobody buys manuals anymore outside of a sports car….
why would you want one?
here is a review of the manual
http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/why-you-dont-want-the-manual-transmission-2015-chevy-co-1699196098
You are wrong about diesels being the way to go, especially anywhere in North America. Propane is the most popular alternate fuel in the world, for good reason. In North America this past 6 months, the wholesale price of propane is under $1.00 per U.S. gallon. In Canada, in particular both Toronto and Calgary, propane is elling at the pump for as low as 32 cents per liter. That is just $1.21 per U.S gallon in Canadian funds but in U.S currency, it is just 92 U.S. cents per U.S gallon. North American propane is about the best in the world, as Grade 5, is the lowest in sulpher and is 105 octane R+M. In the U.S., the federal tax deduction for adding the propane fuel system gives you a $2,500 fed tax deduction. In Canada, the same fed tax deduction is $2,000. Unlike the diesel on both the Dodge Ram 1500 pickup truck and the Chev/GMC Colorado, you are not required to order the top end model, just to get the ability to order the diesel engine. To spend an additional $1,800 to $3,000 just to get the top end model of Ram or Colorado, does not make ANY sense, when diesel fuel cost two to three times as much as propane. With today’s very high compression ratios on the gasoline engines, you get an extra ten percent in torque and HP, when you run on propane. EG: the Chev Colorado/GMC Canyon engine is a 3.6 liter V6 with 11 to one compression ratio, which takes advantage of the 105 octane propane, making the engine run like crazy. I have supervised three different fleets since 1981, running over 25 million miles ( 40 million Kilometers ) all V6 and V8 engines, running on propane. I have also owned 5 diesel vehicles, so been there done that with the ether in the very cold winter days, freezing my butt off to start the trucks at minus 25 degreees.
Well another minus is the price tag. Way overpriced for what you will get.
I have placed my order for the Canyon 2016 Duramax in May 2015, my dealer still doesn’t know the delivery date.
does anyone know, I am very ancheous
Thank you
Marc-Andre
23-24 City, 30-32 Highway combined 26-28 MPG
Bed capacity is still the same around 1450lbs
Towing spec was leaked a long time ago at up to around 7,700lbs
Axle bearings and braking capacity are what’s holding down the load capability numbers .
NOTE: It is faster than the eco diesel and doesn’t have that ridiculous…”add 4 adults and your payload is less than 200lbs issue.”
IMO torque value is fine…although I’d like to see 200HP just to make it peppier.
I believe our gm little monster will get roughly 30 mpg city and 40 h.w. Mine will average 36 mpg overall. Im looking forward to calling USAA and buying a white 4 door, 2.8 L straight in line diseil that toyota took from USA for the last 20 years! (Helux). Its coming home! Wrapped in black steel guards!
I’ve really been looking forward to the small diesel but with the higher fuel cost, if these numbers are close to correct, I just can’t see it being worth the premium you will pay. Sure they will most likely have a higher payload/towing capacity, but with pricing so close to the Sierra 1500, I think a lot of buyers will just opt for the larger truck if payload is what they are looking at. Also, Nissan is looking like it will be bringing the Diesel Runner concept to production also, and the specs for that look more promising (look up the ATLAS Titan and Frontier that were developed under a Department of Energy long term projection study). The 2.8L Cummins was used in a Titan with better numbers than this and that was a 2010 model if I’m not mistaken.
Diesel fuel has nearly reached parity with petrol.
All i know is that they said the cruze diesel would get 35 highway when in fact they get 46. So i am sure that gm will be underating their product again this time around since they really dont know what it will get. All i know is that if it gets over 35 highway the wife is getting one of the first ones off the lot
all i know is my 05 2.8 diesel jeep liberty can get 35 MPG at 55MPH and 25 MPG at 80MPH and its got 3.71 gears in the rear end a crap 5 speed transmission (thanks for nothing Chrysler) and EGR delete and a Hot tune. currently at 200HP and 364 ft*lb 🙂
you’ll probably get better in the Colorado Canyon once the tuners and EGR deletes kits come out for them. considering its got a more updated motor, better 6 speed transmission (where the #@%& is the 8 speed GM?), and a 3.42 rear end.
I”m sure anybody who knows diesel will enjoy it.
The Mini-Duramax has been made in Thailand for a while. Why only MPG estimates? Yes, the Colorado and Canyon are new bodies.
I think GM is targeting a “niche” market. The Colorado isn’t a truck for truck guys. If you seriously need to do towing then this may not be the right truck. If you want a work truck, then again this may not be for you. This truck is for daily drivers, who want the MPG with additional towing capacity and comfort for their weekend travel trailer, boats and jet skis. I believe there is a market for this and GM is taking aim.
The Thailand models aren’t comparable to the US market because of the EPA standards and exhaust restrictions. Horse Power is not why you are going to buy this truck. The non-truck guy “niche” wants the daily driver with enough torque and luxury in a compact frame. For this reason I believe GM is heading in the right direction, but I am not sure if they went far enough. Until all the facts are known its pointless to debate.
For the non-truck guy, who wants a truck, the MPH has to be at least 5 MPG better then comparable Chevy V6. If not the Duramax will be an epic fail. In order to make the fuel economy attractive the Duramax has to be at least 25/32, because this all the Non-Truck Niche understands. In order for the price of gasoline compared to diesel to average out you got to get at least 5 MPG more out of the diesel.
The niche buyer doesn’t really know that they don’t need all that torque for Sunday driving with jet skis. They will go for the horse power, cheaper sticker and gas price vs. a few more MPG with greater torque and towing capacity. GM is targeting the non-truck guys who want a truck with the luxury and efficiency.
For a guy like me, this truck would be a great daily driver that can still comfortably tow my 5,500 LBS travel trailer cross country with higher fuel efficiency. When you break down the mileage of my daily drive compared to towing, I could do just as well with the V6, at a lower upfront cost. For me to get anything out of mileage, GM has to do at least 5 MPG or better with the Duramax.
The debate over the RAM ECO HP vs. the Duramax HP is irrelevant, the RAM is for a truck guy with a specific need. The Colorado is for the niche truck guy that wants the MPG. Chevy isn’t going to be compete head to head with the RAM, without the MPG. I hope Chevy is waiting to put out the MPG because they understand the need to get this right.
I believe you are correct Dave.
I currently own a small diesel and i keep telling people ITS NOT FOR EVERYBODY…
but if you want great MPG and the ability to tow as well, diesel is a fantastic choice.
where as if your daily drive to work is short or you don’t tow or if you tow HUGE payloads this truck is not for you.
as for me i drive over 30 miles one way to work and tow ATVs 3k lbs (really long hauls) on the weekends and holidays so its perfect for me.
do the math for your self
for some – its amazingly better choice
for others – they are just throwing their money away
I will be buying one once the 8 speeds get into the little oil burners
nothing makes me happier than getting 2X the MPG out of my little diesel Jeep liberty when towing than i do with my silverado
I own a Ram Ecodiesel and can tell you that there’s no reason to get the new GM mini diesel unless you are a die-hard GM fanboy. Just about the same price point and mileage in a full size truck is a no brainer to me. With the Ram’s far superior suspension (no leaf springs here) system, including the 4-corner air suspension, this thing rides like a Caddy. Literally. I have a 2012 CTS and it rides no better. Throw in the much-larger cabin, and the ability to haul larger items in a REAL truck bed, and the Colorado/Canyon seems like a losing proposition. But it does look pretty good.
I’ve been looking at both these trucks for a few weeks and the Ram has by far the better pricing. They’re offering huge rebates and incentives while Chevy can’t even get enough product out to fill orders from months ago. I’m sure this will change as they get caught up on production but, right now (Mid March) you can get an equivalent optioned Ram Eco for less than Colorado Duramax by at least $2000. No way I’m buying a smaller truck with less power for $2000 more!
I would like to see the 4 cylinder Duramax diesel pull a 1600 lbs trailer up a steep hill. GM has always overrated their towing abilities.
Every manufacturer has over estimatedtheir towing capabilities, that’s nothing new. But with the SAE J2807 standard we should, and are, seeing a more realistic trailering standard
And 1600lbs is nothing. An Accord could tow that.
Sorry, I meant 7600 lbs trailer.
Oh ok. Yea I would never tow close to the manufacturer recommended limit, no matter a V8 or 4cyl diesel. If you’re planning to tow 80%+ it’s max, just upsize the truck.