May 6, 2012 at 6:06 pm #38276
What engines choices should 2014 Colorado offer?
2.0 tt (ecoboost fighter)
And 3.6 gas
Is that too much engines choices for Colorado?
May 6, 2012 at 7:26 pm #39865
no such thing as too much choices for a truck. but i think another diesle instead of the 2.5 gas.
May 6, 2012 at 7:44 pm #39866
Yes it is too much, I dont think a vehicle should never have more than three engine choices. Too much confusion for customer.
1. Fuel efficient / base version : 2.5 gas
2. Decent mpg / decent power : Ecoboost / 2.8 diesel
3. ALL power / top end : 3.6
But I guess with the diesel it can be up to 4, but thats pushing it.
May 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm #39867
Guys, the 2.5 and 2.8 Duramaxes are most likely going to be available here as well. They’re global engines.
May 6, 2012 at 8:04 pm #39868
If there were only 3 available engines, a 2.5 base, 3.6 high end and either a 2.0 tt with 1,500 mark up, or a 2.8 diesel with 5k mark up, i’m guessing that both would have similar power and fuel economy. which would you choose?
May 6, 2012 at 8:08 pm #39869
I don’t see a point for these both Duramax’s. They are too close.
May 6, 2012 at 8:23 pm #39870
Id pick the 2.0 tt, it would be cheaper and better mpg when not towing/hauling anyhing
There should definitely only be one duramax, the 2.5 or the 2.8, not both.
May 6, 2012 at 9:07 pm #39871
In regards to the Duramaxes:
2.5 liter Duramax:
– 150 hp
– 258 lb.-ft. torque
2.8 liter Duramax:
– 180 hp
– 346 lb.-ft. of torque
That’s almost 90 lb.-ft. of torque more from the 2.8 over the 2.5. 90 lb.-ft. ain’t “close” in my book, especially when it’s the same engine with a bigger block that doesn’t cost any more to produce over the 2.5.
May 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm #39872
Alex whats the hp and torque of the 2.0 tt, cant remember.
May 6, 2012 at 9:30 pm #39873
@Babersher Depends on which 2.0 Turbo you’re talking about.
If it’s the new unit in the 2013 ATS and 2013 Malibu, then it’s 272 hp and 260 lb.-ft. of torque in the ATS; if this engine were to appear in the Colorado, then its numbers would be somewhere around those due to the similar RWD layout of the platforms.
May 7, 2012 at 5:18 am #39874
That’s impressive power from the 2.8, there is no need for 2.5 in colorado for NA market.
May 7, 2012 at 6:24 am #39875
I would prefer the 2.8L Diesel. I still have the link to the Thai Colorado (Eng) and in one of the pictures it is showing 13.3 km/l which is just over 31 MPG. I suspect that might be the 2.5L Diesel, but if it is the 2.8L then I would think that wasnt to bad. If they want to offer a gas in addition to the diesels, I would still most likely go for the 2.8L. A truck is more about torque than hp!
May 7, 2012 at 6:40 am #39876
If it’s a small truck like the first gen S-10 … I may go for the 2.5L gas. If it’s a mid size truck like the Colorado is. I’ll not buy one no matter what engine it comes with.
When it comes to the UTE … I’d consider one. I had a 65 and 70 El Camino and liked the both of them. What I’d have in my driveway right now is a Cruze WAGON with 180-190hp.
May 7, 2012 at 8:52 am #39879
the current colorado is a small truck the dakota was a midsized. yes the colorado is bigger then the s-10 but so is the silverado 1/2ton over it’s comparable counterpoint so your comment is now moot sorry
May 8, 2012 at 9:40 am #39890
here is some pics of the chevy montana a very small truck found in south america.
May 8, 2012 at 2:39 pm #39892
Maybe the Colorado is called a small or compact truck, still my moot point is it’s larger then what I want in a small truck.
Size of a S-10 or what ever name GM puts on the thing, it’s moot to me.
May 11, 2012 at 8:26 pm #39919
chevytothemax, got to say the montana should be brought here as an option, but with a mild facelift to justify its existence here in the states. Personally I think the concept of the vehicle is great, small (a little too car looking) sporty and utilitarian. Make it a little more rugged and man I think this would do really well, have an SUV version to cover the platform costs ect…
May 14, 2012 at 11:43 pm #39935
chevy montana …….. looks like Montezuma’s revenge
May 22, 2012 at 9:36 am #40005
Hi everybody, this is my first here,so bear with me. I believe that next generation Colorado or what other name, should come with the 2.5 gas base engine and 3.6gas, 2.5 ,2.8 diesel as options.
May 23, 2012 at 9:00 am #40014
I believe the little Montana ,could be a very useful truck to some people here in the states , now if it was offered in allwheel drive it would be even better.
May 23, 2012 at 4:35 pm #40018
@oldchevyman48 Welcome to the GM Authority Forum! 😀
I like where you’re going with the engine choices in the Colorado and also think the Montana could see some sales success across North America. Unfortunately, all wheel drive isn’t offered on the Montana in South America, but that’s not to say it’s not possible on the platform itself since we all know that the Gamma II plus that underpins the Encore can do AWD.
My only concern is that the Montana rides on a modified Gamma II platform that’s down-specced for lower cost markets, and I’m pretty certain that AWD wasn’t engineered in.
Here’s an impressive fact: the Montana has a payload of 1,671 lbs — pretty impressive for such a small car-based truck:
August 1, 2012 at 7:17 am #40406
I’ve always driven a full size truck for the handful of times per year that I need to haul my travel trailer. If the Colorado comes with the option of the 2.8 TD sign me up. That will give me the torque I need for confident pulling, and good mileage and easier parking for the 90% of the time that I’m not towing. They do need to offer a gas 4 cyl for the trades and delivery customers. The V6 would only be needed if they were trying to reach a performance market.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.