Recent spy photos from Motor Trend show the next-generation, all-new Chevrolet Colorado testing in the desert, with one particular picture of the engine bay opened up.
There’s not much to see, other than the typical black plastic with “V6 VVT” molded on top. Currently, the only engine to spell out that alpha-numeration is the 3.6L LFX V6 engine. And considering the rumor that the new Colorado and GMC Canyon will not share a single engine with the larger Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra, it seems that the writing is on the wall that the LFX will be planted into these GMI700 trucks.
The engine cover seems to look the part. However, the torque figure of the current LFX (275 lb-ft in the Cadillac ATS), just doesn’t seem substantial enough to pack the necessary punch the twin trucks need to take it to the Toyota Tacoma and Nissan Frontier. Either way, we’re confident that the GM engineers have an ace up their sleeve.
Comments
I want a diesel!
Crew Cab 4×4 in Black
-3.0 Diesel @ 250hp, 400lb-ft
-8spd auto (!!!)
-ZR2 pack à la S10
-HID + LED
-Hard plastic tri-fold tonneau
-car-esque interior but still know you’re in a truck (digital gauge cluster, chevy mylink, USB+AUX, 110v); good seats-not just cushioned flat slabs; power rear window; sunroof.
-tow package
-then the standard amenities
That’s what I want. If they offered the 3.0 diesel that’d be enough and I could do the rest aftermarket.
You can’t have a 3.0 Liter diesel as they were downsized to a 2.8 Liter as the optional diesel in Asia. The base engine is the lower power 2.5 Liter and both have turbo’s. In fact, the GM Aussie website does not even mention a gas engine anymore, which is very strange as the love propane down under. In fact, on the same website, the Chev Caprice STATION WAGON, offers an optional LPG, propane 3.6 L V6 as well as the gasoline base 3.6 L V6. Of course the 3.6 L is a Direct Injection engine with very high compression ratios and many different HP ratings on the various gm 2013 models. In the Camaro and Cadillac, it has a high compression ratio of 11.5 to one and lesser models has only 11.2 to one ratio. Since propane has 105 octane R+M, it is the fuel to use. On the 2014 GM V8 pickups, the ultra high compression 11.5 to one 5.3 liter EcoTec3 engine and gets more HP and torque on propane or E85 than on gasoline. The gain on E85 is 25 HP on the 5.3 V8 over gasoline and propane gains 40 HP over gasoline because of the much higher octane and hydrogen content. Beside why buy diesel when the Feds give you a rebate on propane of 50 cents per U.S. gallon until the end of 2016. That makes propane as cheap as $1.40 a gallon if the pump price is $1.90 a gallon. Compare that with diesel at $3.50 to $4.20 a gallon and this means diesel doesn’t work anymore. You also get a U.S. Fed tax deduction of $2,500 when you convert your car or truck to run on propane, leaving the gasoline system on, so you can run either fuel.
Y U NO 4.3L???
The new 4.3 has variable valve timing also, but they probably would have put Ecotec3 on the motor if that was the 4.3. The 3.6 is fine for the small truck driver that just wants a quick drive, but for the person who really wants to use this truck like the 90% of full size that we’ve been hearing, the 4.3 and the 2.8 TDI should be in there. It should also get the 2.5 I4 for the auto parts delivery trucks and the pest control fleets.
The 3.6 v6 should of been in 1st gen. Colorado in the first place!
Test mule heavily camoed with plastc cover stateing V6 VVT does not necisarily mean that this engine will be the engine in these vehicles… We have all seen allot of goofy things on test mules before… But who knows, the 3.6L LFX V6 seems like it would be a little pricey on this vehicle.
From the A-pillar back it looks like a Tacoma. I sure hope this won’t be what it will look like.
I expect most of these trucks to be Turbo 4 gas engines. The V6 could easily be over 320 HP from a Camaro.
The idea here is to give what the larger trucks can’t give with the larger mass. Gas Mileage. If they can not haul a larger load and the price is similar you go for what the larger truck can not do more MPG.
I think this is why GM did not go Turbo V6 in the full size truck as they will target MPG and lower price here vs. the Ecoboost F 150. Not sure if that will work but why else would they offer this?
We also have to keep in mind while the 4.3 might cost less it is a much more expensive engine than it once was. It is no longer the old cast iron 3/4 Small Block. In fact the LT is not really the old Small Block anymore either.
I am sure these will sell but I do not think it will be a home run. It is hard to justify the purchase of a truck that cost near what a full size cost and hauls less when you can get a full size on rebates in November for the same or near same price.
I think Chevy would have done better to go back to the old formula of the S10 and pick up the market left behind by the Ranger and other trucks that have grown in size. The is more MPG and more saving in purchase. I know the profits are less but even Ford made money and sold a lot of Rangers even after it was well past it’s prime.
The prices on old S10 and Sonoma’s are doing well if they are in good condition as people want them but can’t buy one. I got top dollar for mine with miles in the six figures and my S10 sold at 10 years old and over 100K miles for near 2/3rds the purchase price. Yes it was stock.
Lets see what the 3.6 returns gas mileage wise before we kill this idea
My guess is not much, if any, better than what the 4.3L gets in the 2014 ‘Rado/Sierra
I can honestly say that I don’t have a definitive prediction for the engine lineup, other than the 3.6 . The possibilities are pretty nice…standard 2.5 ecotec as base, and the 2.0 turbo as an alternate or the 2.8 duramax.
I agree with scott in the idea of most of the trucks being turbo fours, but the diesel could make it interesting.
The 3.6 is a car engine with heads that warp. I own a 2012 equinox with the 2.4 engine in it because they has problems with the 3.6 heat displacement. The 4.3 next gen. engine I believe is the better choose, If it gets 18/24 MPG in the full size 4 door than it should get more in the lighter midsized truck.
Where is that info from? I’ve owned 3 of those 3.6L engines (one LY7, one LLT, one LFX – 2006 CTS, 2008 CTS, 2013 Lacrosse). I have daily experience with each 3.6L version
Yes, I agree that is a good motor in a CAR. They put the 2.8 in the old S-10 and they didn’t hold up when hauling and towing something heavy. The heads gaskets blew and the heads warped. I have know a 1998 S-10 and haul a pontoon boat the weigh’s close to 5,000 lbs. and have had know problems with the 4.3 Truck motor that is in it. I beleive that the next gen 4.3 motor wil get better mileage and last longer. I wanted to buy a new truck years ago but CHEVY didn’t put the right motor in it. so I am stuck with my 1998 S-10 with 230,000 miles on it until they get up off their duff’s and build a small/midsized truck with a real motor in it… 2.8 turbo deisel and 4.3 next-gen with 6 speed tranny…
You would think that the smaller vehicle would get better mileage, but it’s hasn’t been a guarantee. The Colorado with the 5.3 didn’t do any better than the full size trucks, and the Jeep Grand Cherokee gets similar mileage as the full size Ram with the same engines/tranny. The EPA numbers don’t make sense to me, but maybe the real world mileage shows more of a difference – unfortunately, that doesn’t help the manufacturers.
The only reason why the 5.3 didn’t get better mpg was because of the tranny’s. colorado had the 4 speed tranny and the full size had the new 5 speed in it. The new next-gen 4.3 has 285 hp. and a 6 speed tranny in it and is rated @ 18-25 mpg’s on the full size so it only stands to reason that the same engine and tranny in a lighter truck will produce better mpg. That is the reason why chevy is trying to lighten up the full size!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Better MPG’S!!!!!!!!!!!!!
4.3L Ecotec3 V6!!!!
A truck needs a TRUCK engine in it to be a Truck. 4.3 Ecotec3 V6 or 2.8 turbo diesel!!!!!!! Also why would you build a truck that is almost the same length as a full size pickup but Skinny. I want a Mid size truck extended cab, SUICIDE DOORS, 4 person. Why would anyone want to buy a full sized extended cab with 4 DOORS!!!!!!!!!
You guys are forgetting one important factor to mileage from these smaller trucks. Aerodynamics.
As long as these mid size trucks look like real “trucks” that we Americans love, mileage will continue to be a hard target to hit. The only way would be to use the smallest displacement tuned to maximum efficiency to squeeze out as many MPGs as you can possibly get. Also the weight of the vehicle highly effects it’s mileage.
But we Americans couldn’t live with a mid size truck that doesn’t look like a truck nor has no power. It’s a trade off that becomes so hard for manufactures to balance. There’s no way to offer a trucks boxy look. Have lots of HP and torque, be small enough but also big enough and strong enough to tow 7000+ and return good mileage from a gas engine.
It’s a simple trade off and fine tuning and balancing.
Until GM and others explore a different way of powering these mid size trucks for power, towing and mileage, you just can’t get all that in a package.
The diesel gets you closer to that goal in mileage but IMO still not enough.
This is why a mid size truck will always be the “caravan” of an everyday man and the vehicle that can do a little bit of everything but not the greatest at one specific area.
I still believe that if you use the same 4.3 ecotec3 motor and tranny in the colorado that is in the full size you would get 20% if not more in mpg!!!!! I would guess that you would get 21-30 mpg!!!!!! city/highway…..With the 4.3 you will be able to haul and pull whatever
The only way to fix the mpg of a small truck is for GM to produce 3 trucks full size a mid size like this and a very small fwd truck that has a small bed and can tow a small amount!
A voltec set up, a 3 or 4 banger and a diesel
Alumium Hood, Bed door, Brake Components, and Aluminum Wheels. A 9 or 10 speed transmission that GM and Ford are working on together would help too!!
well if this actually turns out to be the design of the new Colorado…I’m buying! Better than the other photos I’ve seen. Just wish GM had a 3.0 V6 diesel…none sound sweeter!
If car companies REALLY wanted to increase mileage, they would build a 6 speed auto transmission that would benefit mileage. Most of the time, the 6 gears are placed “somewhere in between” the gears in a 4 speed. Make a 6 speed with the 2 extra gears “higher” than fourth gear, then watch mileage increase substantially.
I just love hearing people complain about 6 7 8 transmission s cuz they are always hunting for a gear!
Isn’t that the job of the transmission? To find the right gear for the conditions!
A 8 speed will make this truck a homerun
8 speed auto is a bit on the ridiculous side. I had a GMC Sierra with a 6 speed auto, and it seemed as though it was always shifting. A bit irritating.
I currently have a crew cab long (“skinny”) bed ‘Ota. Like many folks I have no need for a true full size pickup. My truck pulls my atv trailer with ease. For the times that only one quad is needed, I can go trailerless because my full size grizzly will easily, safely fit in the bed. Even though we have no true need for a full size truck, we still want a truck that fits our needs. A four door short bed truck might as well be whatever car comes to your mind for hauling a full sized quad. It ain’t gonna fit. And just because….(I loved the first comment from Andrew) my needs call for a smaller pickup, doesn’t mean I want a smaller degree of comfort. My Toyota seats are horrible. Unless you like sitting on treated lumber. The mpg is under 20. Tooling down the road, 16-18. Sad. My 6.2 clobbers that figure while in hammer- down mode. I don’t want those seats either, btw.
I want what Andrew wants. A loaded four door with a useable bed. With the larger baby Max diesel and the possibility of an honest- to- goodness 25 real- world mpg’s. In white, please. :~))
Sometime back gm said the colorado and the silverado would not share engines. Has anyone considered either a different displacement ecotec3 for the Colorado or a revised 60 degree v6 based off the old 3900, not the LFX v6. It would seem that all they would need to do is add direct injection to the 3900 and it would be fully buzzword compliant (vvt, DoD, canted valves,…..)
If you want to know everything about the 2015 Chevy Colorado, take a look at the brazilian Chevrolet website, and search for S10, and Trailblazer… You will find all the information about diesel, an gasoline engines, transmission, and images…
The 3.6L V6 engine has 239 hp, and the transmission is a 6 speed automatic..
The diesel engine is a 4 cilinder, 2.8L, with 200hp..
In Brazil there’s also a 2.4L 4 cilinder flex (runs on ethanol or gasoline or any mix of both), 150hp..
That doesn’t mean that it is going to carry over to the United States. . . .
My guess is a 4.3L V6 and 2.8L TDI I4. GM could also be producing a smaller displacement Ecotec3 V6 for the Colorado/Canyon (My guess would be a 4.0L with around 275HP and 295LB-FT, although GM could tune it to about 290HP and 315LB-FT I doubt it. Due to the fact that these trucks are meant for fuel economy and not so much power. . .)
When chevrolet released the new S10, and the new Trailblazer here in Brazil, all the old S10 fans were disapointed. The older model had a Vortec 4.3L V6 engine, which were even better than the engine that Chevy offered here in the Silverado that was a 4.1L L6. The 3.9 just doesn’t have enough torque, in my opinion. But the Brazilian truck market doesn’t buy gasoline engines. Here, about 80% of the trucks are turbo Diesel. We have only models that offers gasoline engines here. Chevy, with the S10, Ford, with the Ranger, Mitsubishi, with the L200 and Toyota, with the Hillux. All the other models, Nissan Frontier, Volkswagen Amarok, Ram 2500, Ford F-250, 350 and 450 are offered only with diesel engines. As in USA the share is bigger for gas engines, propably you’ll have better gas engine options..