All-new midsized pickups are entering the fray with the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon fraternal twins, and it’s great to know that they will come well equipped with a diesel offering, GM Authority has learned.
While it’s unclear if the 2015 Colorado and Canyon will feature both the 2.5L and 2.8L diesel motors featured in the international-spec Colorado sold around the world currently, it will be one or both of these motors that the trucks will utilize. The smaller 2.5L Duramax mill produces 150 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque, while the more powerful 2.8L turbodiesel that promises 180 hp and a stout 346 lb-ft of torque, in the international Colorado.
To note, it’s expected that the GMI700 trucks will not feature any of the same engines that the larger K2XX 2014 Silverado and Sierra 1500 trucks offer. But a more compact pickup with a diesel engine? Where do we sign?
Comments
These trucks are sounding/looking better every time information leaks. GM is gonna have a hot seller on their hands!
I’m All In Baby with the 2.8L TD……………Hell Yea!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Agreed!
Yo Andrew, what do you think about a GMC Canyon Denali and Not some Watered down Junk with a 2.8L TD with 250HP@400 lb-ft Tq. ? 🙂
Encouraging news. It’s what they need to be competitive in my view.
Based on the Chevy Cruze’s epa estimate of 46 mpg Highway, I would take a stab at it and suggest that the Colorado may round off somewhere in the high 30’s epa range with the Diesel option, this would be groudbreaking innovation for a pickup truck of any scale if that’s accurate, we’ll know the numbers soon enough.
The Holden website quotes the 2WD single cab Colorado with the 2.5L and 5 speed manual as capable of about 30mpg. The 4WD double cab with the 2.8L and 6 speed auto is capable of about 25mpg. Those are converted figures from the Australian average cycle. A little unscientific research puts the Australian average results at about 1mpg less than the equivalent US highway results. So My estimation for economy would be about 31mpg highway for the lightest 2.5 and 26mpg highway for the heaviest 2.8.
I’m guessing we’ll get the 2.8L, and 25-27mpg highway and 19-21mpg city sounds about right.
I hope the 2.8 can get better than those numbers since the 4.3 is only 1 or 2 mpg off those numbers. And if Ram and Nissan are able to get those numbers out of their upcoming diesel options then having a more manageable size truck and up front pricing will be the only advantage the colorado/canyon will have.
Yeah maybe I over exzagerrated a bit as far as EPA estimates in the high 30’s on the highway, prehaps 27-28mpg would be close.
i think we are all forgetting about aftermarket products that will be made available for these trucks. with the right programmer, cold air intake and a full exhaust we could probably see low to mid 30mpg on the highway. if my buddy can get 24mpg on a 4 door dually f350 with the 6.0 powerstroke these things should do much better
Your friends dually doesn’t get anywhere near 24 mpg, Douceball!
Its all about quality and getting the most for your buck. Hope the gearing have been changed to improve gas millage even in the four by four’s. I am holding off buy a new truck, I want to see what this baby is going to look like and how it performs.
Nice!!
I’d trade my 2011 for a 2015 if it’s got at least the 2.8 diesel.
I’m considering that option also, I currently have the 2011 Sierra 2500HD 6.0Liter, a very reliable truck, but the many trips to the Gas Station to keep this thing on the road is really “Getting Old”
I’m suspecting that the Silverado and Sierra will follow suite with a Diesel option probably for the 2015 Model Year, this will be a direct assult against Ford and RAM, but those epa numbers will have to be right on the mark along with the horespower and torque ratio!
GM doesn’t have a contender in the “Sport Truck” section yet! Like the Ford Raptor or Dodge Runner.
I agree that there will be the full-size diesel as well, probably the 4.5 Duramax, especially since the next Titan is getting a Cummins.
I realize either of these motors would need to be tweaked for the North American market,but based on their overseas counterparts does anyone have a rough idea what kind of fuel economy we could expect?
Couldn’t care less for the diesel engine, but dear god, just don’t make them as ugly as the preview models looked. The 2004-2013 models were perfect, not too big, not too small, decently powered with the 3.7L or the V8, and very aggressive styling. A truck shouldn’t look like a minivan, thx!
Dodge tried that for years with the Dakota. The market is asking for a true small truck, not one that can’t make up its mind what it wants to be. Ford is making a killing with the Transit-Connect…a small van that nobody expected to do well. Buick is doing remarkably well so far with the ultra-small luxury SUV Enclave. Chevrolet is doing very well with the ultra-tiny Spark. The trend? Smaller CAN be better. Recall also that the previous Colorado/Canyon are seriously hated out there. A formula like that used for the S10/Sonoma is what is required here. But…we are talking about the truck division of GM here. They don’t usually follow the rest of the team anyway…
“ultra-small luxury SUV Enclave” — you mean the Encore. The Enclave with its length of 5 .1 meters (201.8 in) ist not small at all…
There haven’t been official numbers yet but Ram’s president has stated that the 3.0 Diesel Ram 1500 is shooting for 30 mpg (2wd I assume). If that ends up being the case, GM will need these trucks to pull mid-30s mileage to really be competitive with other trucks on the market. I mean why would I buy a midsized truck that gets the same or less mpg than a full size and I assume will cost about the same from the dealer with a diesel option?
Why does anyone buy midsize cars when you can have a fullsize? Why should it be any different for trucks?
But yes, they need to be in the low 30s on the hwy with the diesel.
Personally, I’m thinking about waiting till the 2500HD’s of the new model are announced this October….A 2014/15 Denali 2500HD with a Diesel? Badass…..
The 2015 GM HD’s Debut @ Texas State Fair NEXT WEEK
I’m suspecting only Grill and Bumper differences from the 1500 models.
I assume only the 2.8L has enough power to seriously tempt the north american consumer. It sounds like the real contender that GM needs. Downsizing is the trend, but how many will move down to this segment over time remains to be seen.
Offer both, but make a LD trailering package with the 2.5 and a HD trailering package with the 2.8
Put a reasonable premium over the base engine — not over the optional engine like the Ram — and you will drive volume and not just volume — CONQUEST volume — worth it’s weight in gold.
I’d also consider the 2.8L to probably become the only Diesel option for the U.S.-spec versions, along the 3.6L High-Feature V6 already available in Mexico and maybe also a 4-cylinder gasser. Since the 2.8L has the same torque rating as the Vortec 5300, altough at lower RPMs, a V8 won’t be missed so badly. The 2.5L Duramax, by the other side, might be a great option to the Impala.
Engines-
1.6t I4 with 210HP and 235-250LB-FT
2.8t V6 with 325HP and 340-355LB-FT
2.8tdi I4 with 200HP and 350-365LB-FT
Transmissions-
6 Speed Manual
8 Speed Automatic
Its probably going to be more like:
2.5L 4cyl gas, 200hp 190tq
3.6L V6 gas, 300hp 270tq
2.8L 4cyl diesel, 180hp 346tq
6 speed Manual
8 speed Auto
Danali? That sounds interesting. A smokin loaded, less than full size pickup, with a right sized diesel engine. I like the sound of that. A fully optioned full size truck has become quite costly. Especially to folks that have no need for a full sized truck, but still want a dressed/ dolled up pickup. That would be the ticket for some folks… (fist pump!) :~)))
EvanR where did you find those numbers? did you mean to say 4.3 instead of 3.4 and 3.9 that number is new to me. Are this engines the old OH valve motors of the past?
With all the talk about engines, where’s the 8 speed transmission that GM was developing with Chrysler?
The 4L60 in my Colorado thinks it’s being push by a small block (that’s how it appears to behave), a 6-speed conversion would make it much better, I’m sure mileage would be to!
Chrysler sources their 8spd auto from ZF. GM and Ford are working on both 9 and 10 speed transmissions with one another. Development only, each company has to manufacture and tune the transmissions separately
I do get over 26mpg highway @ 70-75 with the AC on!
So the GM and Chrysler 8spd program was ditched?
I didn’t know there ever was one. GM is developing their own 8spd rwd purposed transmission in house. It *should* have already been out.
GM’s 8sp is still under development. For now they are using an Aisin unit in the CTS. I assume they’re roll out their in-house 8sp into more vehicles when its ready.
GM was developing their own, but it was behind schedule. I hadn’t heard of them developing one with Chrysler. I believe when word came out about the 9 and 10 speeds, people wondered if GM would continue development, but I don’t think GM has said so it’s all guesswork.
Yes GM! BUT please offer the MANUAL across all trims and engine options. PLEASE! 2.8L TD with 6 speed Manual. Where do I sign!?
tch. Good luck with manuals in ANY trim. The take rate has been just woeful.
Don’t see a manual at all, thanks to emissions…..
Look for DEF useage, but how much is it gonna use? EGR?
Baby Allison? 10 speed?
Multi injection? Injectors gonna be in or outside valve cover? High Pressure injectors?
Single or dual turbo? Single or Dual Fuel pumps?
Whats the Service intervals?
Andrew i believe that if the Colorado will be 80%/ 90% size of the full size truck,then the Colorado would probably weigh any where between 200 to 500 lb less, that should give the 4.3 in the Colorado 21 to 30 or better mpg. I too believe like justa that the 4.3 truck engine should be in the Colorado option list .
What reason do you have to think there will be a 5-6mpg spike in fuel econ? Weight saving might attribute to 1-2mpg. A higher final drive would likely help more than a loss of 300lbs in a truck on the highway MPG. But then you loose the low end. Aero at highway speeds is what the main player is, pressure and drag around the vehicle increase exponentially with linear speed increase.
Look back with the 5.3 was offered in the Colorado, the MPG difference between it and the Silverado with same engine were basically the same. 2008 Silverado with 4spd auto and 5.3L = 15city/20hwy. 2012 Colorado with 4spd auto and 5.3L=14city/20hwy.
I compared with a 2008 Silverado since I believe that was the last year the 4spd was on offer with the 5.3L engine.
Weight isn’t the go to, especially with a truck ,it is just one of the many key factors. These trucks will be more aero efficient that the full size trucks sure, but they still aren’t anywhere to being slippery. The 8spd trannys might get another couple MPG once they are implemented, which is hopefully right from launch with these trucks.
Andrew you may be right, but here we are talking of a new Direct injection V6 not the old 5.3 V8 to V8. I hope we get chance to see it happen. I still hope that the EcoTech3 4.3 is an option on the Colorado / Canyon.
I’m not convinced that final drive helps that much with fuel economy either. My parents once owned an 02 sierra and Tahoe both 5.3 v8 and 4×4. The sierra had 3.73 gearing and the Tahoe had 3.42 and both averaged the same 17 mpg and maintained 19 mpg longer road trips. The only real difference my dad noticed was that the sierra towed much better. And to put a more modern power train out there my family gets better milage with our 3.73 geared 11 Wrangler than a friend of ours gets with his standard 3.21 geared one.
With everything else equal lower gearing will give better mileage. The engine will turn less rpm compared to the higher geared vehicle. As you noticed with the taller gearing, it gives better acceleration and towing performance.
My hope is that I will still be able to get 3.73 gears in one of these trucks when they are available. For one I think lower gearing will handle the diesel torque better and as I stated before I haven’t noticed any difference between trucks and SUVs geared 3.42 and 3.73 other than performance.
They’re two different vehicles. You can’t compare them. The Sierra also probably weighed a few hundred pounds less than the Tahoe.
Diesel torque will handle any gearing better compared to gas. They are usually offered only with lower gearing because they already make more torque.
In the 2014 Silverado you can get 3.08, 3.23, or 3.42. I don’t think we’ll see more than 3.23 with the diesel. Only the 4cyl might get gearing taller than 3.42.
I understand the concept and theory, I just have trouble believing it when it get put into practice. For example, after talking to a friend of mine this morning who drives an 06 Silverado 4×4 with the 5.3 and geared 3.42 I discovered he averages 18 mpg. This is closer to my dad’s Sierra since they are both Ext. Cab and 4×4 with similar options and weight. So the 3.42 geared truck gets one better mpg and it makes me ask is that worth sacrificing the added performance and capability? Personally, I would rather have the taller gearing (without having to regear it myself) to meet my needs (towing a pop-up camper through western NC mountains, hauling whitewater kayaks, climbing, backpacking, and hunting gear back muddy forest service roads where 4 wheel drive is a must, etc.). Tall gearing doesn’t have to be standard but it would be nice to have a choice without having to get the 6.2 in a Silverado or moving up a a 3/4 or 1 ton. It also may depend on terrain where it is being driven. Where I am, the 50 mpg Prius typically averages in the mid 40s due to going up and down steep hills constantly.
I think this Colorado is going to be an exact duplicate of the mechanical engineering as the Isuzu D-Max.
Check out this video (
) @ 0:09 hes showing the MPG on the display.
The 2.8L diesel is averaging 36.1MPG (or 6.5L/100km) while pulling a trailer. That’s real world numbers from this video. At that moment he’s doing 29.6 MPG or 7.6L/100km (which I think this is what he’s averaging at the moment – unless I am mistaken – whats inst. mean?)
Regardless, that’s pretty damn good numbers. I think they will be close to what the Cruze Diesel is achieving but not quite. Regardless if these are truly real world numbers on the diesel and is capable of 3.5 tons of towing, sign me up!
Not quite. GM is making major exterior, interior, and mechanical changes for the US market.
The Colorado only comes with the diesel overseas. We’ll be getting 4 and 6 cyl gas engines. Even the diesel engine will probably need to have some changes to meet our emissions requirements.
We’re getting a crew cab with 6 foot bed so that requires a longer frame.
You can’t compare foreign towing capacity or fuel efficiency.
Towing capacity also has to take the local regulations and terrain into account. A good example for the fuel efficiency – the US vs UK Prius. 50mpg here yet 72mpg there – same car.
That was a good presentattion on that video of what we can expect to see performance wise from the U.S. Market trucks, I suppose that after 10 years of GM nealry missing the mark when pairing up these trucks towards their competitors, they finally got with the right group of Designers and Engineers to bring foward something that will finally be well appreciated by a large group of doubters out there.
The UK imperial gallon is bigger than the US gallon too
I think that since GM has already stated that they plan on marketing these trucks differently (GMC to more work centered folks, i.e. fleet sales, and the Chevy to “lifestyle” buyers) having a few engines that don’t cross over between the Colorado and Canyon could work well. It seems to me that the 2.5 diesel would be good for regular cab fleet buyers because it would give plenty of hauling and towing power with better fuel economy that a gas 4 cyl. With that thought in mind why not only offer the Reg. Cab 2.5 as a GMC only since most regular cab truck buyers are people who use these trucks for fuel mileage and work projects. Since this configuration would only be available as a GMC it would free up Chevrolet to release a new ZR-2 or something that would be a “Sport” offering with a high output gas V6 or V8 that could fill the void that Ford and Ram have with the Raptor and Power Wagon. Having a truck that is as capable off-road as the Raptor that is more maneuverable due to its size and with better fuel economy as a V6 I feel would be a great seller.
NC Dan i hope GM reads all this print, because your absolutely right. I like what you said.
Thanks, just my thoughts and opinion of GM trucks in general since the biggest criticism of them is that they are “twins”. Being built on the same platform is one thing but sharing everything else is a little overkill. And it seems like making slight changes to give Chevrolet and GMC their own unique identities.
This is every bit worth the gamble, a diesel option is something that is lacking in the segment, which mean no direct competition. Will be a great way to attract new customers into Chevrolet and GMC dealerships and pull market share from crosstown rival Ford. If this works I will be looking for the “Minimax” 4.5L Duramax in the 2016 1500 Silverado’s and Sierra’s. Its time for GM to regain the lead in truck sales!!!
I agree, so long as they maintain a good Design and Engineering strategy along with overall good Leadership from all Management levels, in due time they will lead the truck segment once again, it’s looking realitevley promising so far.
Diesel’s ARE A MUST Cant wait to see them in the WHOLE lineup of trucks and cars
I want a 4 cylinder diesel truck and will buy one. I hope that they offer it with a standard transmission!
Foreign markets have cheaper diesel, so naturally they expect diesel engines. In the USA, the economics of a diesel doesn’t make sense for a small pickup. Diesel engines are superb when towing, or cruising for hours on the interstate. A small pickup should be designed to do neither. Just make a light, compact, utilitarian pickup that offers excellent durability and economy, and GM will sell every one it can make. The US market currently doesn’t have an economical small pickup to choose from, and stuffing in an expensive heavy diesel engine won’t make it so … especially with the current price of diesel in the USA.
How about the Chevrolet Montana, developed by GM do Brasil on the basis of the Chevrolet Agile?
Also known as Chevrolet Utility (“Ute”) in South Africa.
You are correct that the market needs an economical small pick up, but gas engines aren’t cuting it. For example, my 89 s-10 4cyl., 5 speed gets better mileage than my sisters 09 canyon 4cyl. 5 speed. This could be due to weight differences or other factors but it seems that the newer engines, especially with fuel prices the way they are, should be more fuel efficient as well as having better emissions than a 20 year old engine with 200000+ miles.
Your S-10 is putting out only 90hp – almost 100hp less than the Canyon. You probably also have a 500-700 pound advantage. Honestly though, the Atlas 4cyl is not known for good mileage.
Really any Atlas engine is known for bad gas mileage, if the 4.2i was redesigned in 2007 to have VVT, SIDI, and AFM it would have done much better!
I actually have a friend who drove a Trailblazer with the 4.2 and he got better mileage than I did in an old 4.3 Blazer I had, despite being heavier. I think you’ve got a good idea with updating the old/current engines with newer technology similar to the new Silverado engines including the higher compression ratios over the older engines as well.
I agree. The last iteration was putting out more power than the new 4.3 without all of that. With all those enhancements it would be an awesome motor. I’m sure it would get back onto the Ward’s 10 best engines list.
That is my main point even in the S-10 to Canyon doesn’t really work. Newer engines such as the Atlas series should get better fuel economy than a 25 year old engine not just have better emissions, at least in my opinion. Which is why I think either or both of the diesel options are a good way to get both.
Is the diesel really that good of an option? I know if your just factoring fuel economy, then yes it’s a better option than the gas engine. But what’s the costs? The servicing costs? Exhaust fluid? Service intervals and servicing of a more complex turbo system? The premium costs of the diesel when buying it?
Or is the cost worth it for that extra torque but loss of horsepower?
Diesels produce more useable power for truck use. Yes there’s a loss of peak horsepower, but with more low end torque, that means the engine is producing more horsepower at the low end. Diesels are also built very stout to handle the high compression which makes them very durable.
Here is a link to a PDF file of a recent study done at the University of Michigan on diesel vs. gas cars, trucks, and SUVs dealing with cost of ownership over a 3-5 year period. It is a good read and seems to take a comprehensive look at a variety of vehicles. It seems like a sound study that takes total cost of ownership into account. Happy reading!
http://www.dieselforum.org/files/dmfile/20130311_CD_UMTRITCOFinalReport_dd2017.pdf
(I tried to find a link on the UM website but was unable to and links on automotive news sites all sent me to this same dieselforum URL)
Why should they offer manual on a stupid subcompact/light truck? Automatic gets almost identical mileage and costs less to repair when it fails. Clutch replacement is not cheap!
If you really want a manual, buy the automatic and swap it out yourself.