Right out of the gate, many readers were left pondering why General Motors went with the universal 3.6L V6 found in everything from the Chevrolet Equinox to the Cadillac ATS, over the all-new Small Block-based 4.3L found in the 2014 Silverado 1500, for the 2015 Colorado. Even we questioned the decision, as the motor seemed like a good fit for the all-new mid-sized pickup. Yet there is a sound reason as to why the truck features the 3.6L motor over the 4.3L.
Simply, the 3.6L V6 was found to be more fuel efficient in the 2015 Colorado over the 4.3L during the truck’s development, according to Chevrolet mid-sized truck marketing manager Anthony Johnson in an interview with us at the 2013 LA Auto Show. That said, the 4.3L would have provided more in terms of towing and hauling capabilities, yet these elements are not the primary reason customers choose mid-sized trucks here in America. Notably Chevrolet expects the 2015 Colorado to tow as much as 6,700 pounds.
Instead, these customers look for a vehicle that can appropriately fit their active lifestyle, rather than needing a work truck that needs to tow tons of weight. We can level with that.
Comments
What manufacture of bike is that blue dirtbike? Nice looking truck too….
Husaburg, looks like a 570cc
My wife has the 3.6 in her traverse and the fuel economy is horrible. It is rated at 24 and it never gets over 20. It does have a good amount of power though. Bet the 4.3 will out do it on mileage and power.
Tell her to drive it better.
My aunt says that her Enclave only gets 17 mpg hwy!
What kind of fuel economy do you predict for 2015 Colorado?
If Silverado gets 24 hwy (2wd) with 4.3, then Colorado should at least get 25 with 2wd model, and since 3.6 is chosen over fuel economy, then I predict 26-27 with 2wd and 25-26 with 4wd. And low 30’s with 2.5 and 2.8 2wd. All hwy miles.
Eric, when I drive my CTS with DI 3.6 I get 21 combined MPG without trying to hyper mile, when my wife drives it, she don’t get better then 19 combined.
I don’t see how the 3.6L will/can be more efficient than the 4.3L! The 3.6L’s average economy ratings are around 16-29. The Impala’s rating of of 29 mpg with the V6 is BS! Try maybe 25 if you’re lucky! The 4.3L has AFM! GM needs to either put AFM into it’s 3.6L or get those 8, 9 and/or 10 speed transmissions here quickly!
Hausenberg
Lex look at vehicle size a Travers has 3 row seating and is almost as big as a Tahoe. Your car is much smaller, equaling lower wind resistance and its lighter. You can also look it up and see what others are getting, very few are happy with the mileage. My sister has a 2010 Suburban that gets the same fuel economy on the road as that traverse and the suburban has a 5.3 V8.
I don’t think they ever built the Traverse with anything but the direct injection version and a 6speed trans.
Eric, I understand that. What I’m saying is that you can usually achieve those manufacturer MPG numbers with almost any vehicle, but you can’t have a heavy foot to do so. And be smart about how you accelerate, coast, brake, driving up the hill/mountain, etc.
Lex, I don’t think driving habits are a problem we had a 2001 V6 3.1 Chevy Malibu that i could get 32 out of, much better than EPA rating. I also get 22 in my 4×4 4door duramax occasionally. These are all hand calculated numbers. If a car states that it can get 24 on the highway I should be able to set the cruse at 70 and get rated mileage if I am on flat ground not pushing a wind. Look an fueleconomy.gov and fuelly.com
Eric, probably NOT at 70. I have always matched my stated mpgs, usually at 55 mph.
So you don’t get 20 MPG why with your traverse?
HWY
DIC shows 21 but hand calc is normally high 19’s lower if it is windy. It only has 72k on it and does not have any problems. Some others have the same luck. http://www.fuelly.com/car/chevrolet/traverse/2009
The 4.3L V6 has Active Fuel Management, am I wrong? Why is the 3.6L more efficient than the 4.3L? Is the smaller displacement of the 3.6L really worth the same or better than 2 cylinders shutting off? I hope GM realizes the 3.6L is the wrong engine and puts the 4.3L in it along with an 8-speed auto and 6-speed manual. My dad has an 02′ Silverado 2500HD Crew Cab 6.0L LT and an 04′ Silverado 2500HD Crew Cab 6.0L LS. Although great trucks, they barely get 15 mpg on the highway. I am going to try to convince him to keep his 02 (because it is in way better shape than his 04′) for plowing and buying a Colorado for towing. He only tows our camper (which is about 3,500lbs) and a commercial lawn trailer (which is about 2,500lbs) and the Colorado can tow up to 6,700lbs! I wonder if that rating is with the 2.8L Duramax or 3.6L High Feature?
Manoli Katakis, Read all the posts before commenting it is not driving habits, that has been covered. I am just trying to make the point that using this engine for fuel economy is not a good idea. The 4.3 is rated at same highway fuel economy as traverse and its in a full size pickup so should be even better in a small pickup. I also know from personal experience that it does not get 24 even when babied, this is confirmed by other drivers look for link in later post.
Finally, someone who understands. . . .
I’m not a GM guy by any means, but this is a smart move by them. I want a truck. I don’t need a fullsize. I don’t need to tow over 6500 lbs. I need a midsize fuel efficient truck that can seat four and that I can use to haul stuff. The Tacoma and frontier haven’t seen major updates in way too long. This truck could put me behind the wheel of a GM for the first time.
Quite disappointed that they didn’t use the 4.3. If they did I would consider it for my next truck. If the 4.3 Silverado is rated at 24 then it should get at least this in the Colorado. So what will the 3.6 engine get? I bet the two (Silverado 4.3 and Colorado 3.6) get very close to the same mileage.
GM has made this mistake before. Originally the truck had a 2.8 V6 from the Camaro and it proved to be an issue. Then they went to the 4.3 and GM had much success. The current body had just an L4 and L5 engines and finally (due to lack of power) they offered a 5.3 from the Silverado.
I see this as a mistake as I do them not offering a standard cab.
I am hoping in the future they upgrade to the 4.3
Agreed, JJS. Was SO hoping they would have a standard cab. I don’t need all that space, and all those doors. Apparently others do, though.
I’m not about to critique on how you guys drive, and why you don’t get the advertised mileage. I’ve driven just about every vehicle with a 3.6 under the sun, and I very easily hit the EPA combined and highway targets.
I don’t get all the “I want more power/torque, bigger tires,” etc. Don’t get me wrong, I like capable trucks, and drive a 2500HD 4×4 . However, the whole point to a small truck is … a small truck. It does NOT need a V8. Sure it would be fun, but it does not need one. All the calls for V8s and trailer capability and carry x000 pounds totally miss the point. If you need pulling capability or big hauling capability and truly need a V8 then you need a full size truck. If you just want to haul little stuff and get good mileage doing it, this truck needs a 4 cyl diesel, not even a V6. It does not need to go 0-60 in 6 seconds, 10 seconds is fine. Put in a torquey little 4 cyl TD and it will be a capable truck that gets 35mpg easy. But, no. Too many people will bitch because they want full size, v8 capability in a little truck and it will not sell and will die in 4-5 years because people want to go 80 mph pulling a trailer too big for it and carrying the whole family.
Who says using the 4.3 is like putting a V8 in the truck. The 4.3 is truck engine and new design. Why not use it.
As far as diesel goes well lets see…. diesel fuel is selling at 50 cents more a gallon plus this option will add 3,000 or more to the cost of the truck.
It would be nice if this vehicle would have the ability to tow a car trailer but it does not. And as far as fuel economy goes we will have to wait and see. The 4.3 Silverado is rated 24 highway. The 3.6 Impala is 28. I’m not seeing the 3.6 exceeding the mileage of the 4.3 Silverado.
Good points, although if they were to use a 4 cyl TD (and I know they have no intention of doing so) I don’t think there would be that big of a price hit and mileage would be significantly higher. I have to admit I was addressing comments made on other pages. I’ve been on 6 or 8 in the last few days and there are many people saying they want V8s. Here, though, I went up and looked and you’re right, the comments are on 4.3 vs 3.6. If the mileage difference is minimal between the two, then you’re you’re right, the 4.3 would be better. The source of my frustration is I’ve followed rumors of small trucks from GM, Ford, and others, and it seems like every article I’d read had comments about wanting more…more power, more carrying, more pulling, more everything, and that’s partially what killed the small truck market in the US to begin with. Remember the Chevy Luvs, Ford Couriers (and their non-US cousins), Toyota Hi-Luxes, etc.? Single cabs, short beds, 4 cylinders, 5 speeds sticks, 35mpg or more with carburetors (imagine what they’d get with modern drivetrains). But people kept wanting more more more and it got to where the capability was near or even exceeding the 1/2 ton market and so was fuel economy. So it no longer made sense to make “little” trucks that were almost as big, just as bad on fuel, and just as expensive as 1/2 tons. So they died. To be fair, the other side of the coin is gov’t requirements wanting tank-like protection in a little package, and to some extent it can’t be done. I don’t think a Courier-Luv-Hi-Lux type truck could be made strong enough to meet current requirements for a car to be able to get hit by a locomotive and survive intact. Perhaps I exaggerate, but you get my meaning. I’ve been overseas quite a bit, and see the non-US trucks being produced all over the world that we can’t get and it’s just a shame. They’re very capable for what they are designed/needed to do, great on fuel, and…not for us. OK, rant over. 🙂
Hi,
I was hoping for a 4.3 so I could purchase one that was capable of hauling a car and trailer (7,500 lbs). If I were to haul this much everyday then, yeah, a V8 Silverado would be my first choice. I only haul 2% of the time.
So a midsized “everyday” truck with the capability of hauling/towing what the base Silverado can would have been nice.
I honestly see the mileage between the 3.6 and the 4.3 as a wash. Since the 4.3 has cylinders on demand and considerable more torque (could be geared higher).
I whole heartedly agree with you on a V8 option. Its overkill.
The 4.3 would also fill a niche that the competition does not have. No one has a V6 with this low end grunt.
I am disappointed the 4.3 is not an option (years ago they sold a lot of 4.3 S-10’s) and I am not certain their reason is valid.
Since the 4.3 is new maybe the reason is demand and they just are not able to supply this engine to both trucks. My hope is that in a year or two they will add this engine to the line up and I will consider one.
As far as the diesel goes, I am not sure if I’d pay the extra cash for one. Of the three engine (diesel, 3.6 and 4.3) the 4.3 would be the easiest to service also. This truck with a diesel would have you (price wise) near what a Silverado would cost.
I agree with lots of you folks here the 3.6 isn’t a very great engine issues with the traverses and sibling to issues with the camroes gm should go big her and offer the 4cyl with 6 speed tranny the 2.8 durmax td 4.3l v6 which will get more then some with gas milage and a zr2 model with the 5.3 and gm would have a hella hit on there hands espically with the zr2 stance with rancho 7000 shocks beefer frontend and rear end and most of all the 33″ tire wide track and offer a sunroof and a split power window now that be a secess of the colorado
Well, the 3.6 is a good running engine, but GM really needs to add AFM and iVVL to it for better mpg! Because 16\23 is very bad!
I think the Colorado/Canyon engines should be:
2.5L I4 VVT, SIDI and iVVL with 215HP and 205LB-FT
3.6L V6 VVT, SIDI, AFM and iVVL with 305HP and 270LB-FT
3.6L Twin-Turbo VVT, SIDI, AFM and iVVL with 395HP and 410LB-FT
GM should definitely put the 4.3L in other products such as: Traverse, Acadia, Enclave for sure. Equinox, Terrain, Anthem (unless they add AFM and iVVL to the 3.6) and performance variants of the Malibu and Impala!
A wothy effort, Evan, but no cigar. NO TRUCK needs that stupid DOHC 4-valve 3.6L V-6. The proper engine lineup for the Colorado is thus:
2.5L i4
3.0L turbodiesel V-6
4.3L V6 EcoTec3
All of these engines will be backed, of course, by the 8- or 10-speed tranny and they will ALL get stupendous milage.
Your twin turbo whizbang motor can go in some whizbang car.
Marshall, learn to write, punctuate, form sentences, use proper syntax and communicate effectively . . . or go back to the third grade.
They can not put the 4.3L V6 in the Colorado. This is a truck for people that don’t want to drive a truck.
I have not driven the 3.6 engine, but suspect that it has two advantages for the smaller vehicles over the 4.3: one is that the narrow V6 is inherently smoother, and the other is the 60 degree engines are narrower, and don’t take as much room. I had a 2002 S10 crew cab with the old version of the 4.3, and while it was certainly adequate, it still vibrated, even with balancing. Don’t know if they have completely eliminated that?
What people don ‘t seem to understand was this design is based closely on the colorado sold overseas for 2 years now. The 4.3 could be too large or it might have required a complete redesign of the hood. Which would make it more expensive and less likely to be produced by the bean counters. Also the truck will be way lighter the the transverse so it should be ok power wise. Also i’m hoping that several simple performance upgrades available on the v6 camaro will also be available for the truck. The 4.3 would never have the amount of aftermarket options that the 3.6 already have.
I’m just hoping that it has decent MPG. I have a ’95 S-10 and it still gets over 24 MPG (it has the original 2.2L 4cyl engine). It’s small and has a great turn radius. I want a smaller truck just to get around in and occasionally haul stuff in the bed as necessary. I love my little truck and don’t want to replace it unless it’s with something better! 😀
When you see that the 3.6L is rated at 24-26 hwy mpg in the Colorado and the 4.3 gets 23-24mpg in the full size Silverado 1500, the decision to use the 3.6L is very questionable. First, the Colorado is going to be roughly 700-1000 lbs lighter than the Silverado. Second the Colorado will have a significantly smaller frontal area to push into the wind. These two things would mean the 4.3 in the Colorado should spend much more of it’s time in Active Fuel Management mode than the Silverado, meaning better fuel economy. The 4.3 would only have to get 1-2 mpg better than in the Silverado to equal the 3.6L. Someone said they do not need all that torque of the 4.3 vs the 3.6L, but in a truck or any heavier vehicle, torque is the name of the game. The 4.3 has 305 ft lbs at 3900 RPM vs the 3.6’s 275 at 4800 RPM. This means you have to rev the 3.6 to the moon to get the truck and a trailer moving, which will kill the fuel mileage towing. It also affects unloaded mileage, especially in a hilly environment, because the lower torque will cause the transmission to down shift more often and that will also kill fuel mileage. I’ve driven a Traverse with the 3.6L and to accelerate at the same pace as my 2004 Tahoe, I had to push the pedal way down and it revved to 4000 rpm, vs. the Tahoe’s 2500 rpm. My Tahoe, even with the dated 4 spd 4L60E, rarely has to downshift on a mild hill, whereas the Traverse dropped 2 gears just to maintain speed, much less accelerate.
This article is pure BS. Theres NO WAY the 3.6 gets better milage than the 4.3L V6. No way in hell. I’m calling a big “B.S.” on this claim AND Anthony Johnson.
Those of us who aren’t clueless lemmings are getting DAMN SICK AND TIRED of you guys treating us like we’re idiots.
GM isn’t offering the 4.3 in the Colorado for two reasons . . .
1) If GM offered the 3.6L and the 4.3L side-by-side, everyone would see from the EPA milage ratings just how fuel INefficient the 3.6L is.
And here’s the big reason . . .
2) By not offering the 4.3L in the Colorado, they successfully force the real truck crowd up-market into the Silverado. They know that no self-respecting Truck Guy will go for the 3.6L motor. It’s a motor for metrosexuals.
GM is in fact handicapping the Colorado in order to protect Silverado sales. My contempt for the management at GM seems to be growing day-by-day.
. . . And I’m a die-hard Chevy guy.
Although I think GM is losing quite a few loyal customers, thinking back to the 4.3 s10/blazers and silverados, with this decision. It’s hard to argue it’s not the correct decision. MPG is what sells the majority of new midsize trucks. Unfortunately they didn’t do better than 27 mpg with the 4 cyl. But when a v6 camaro or mustang gets 30 mpg, lets look at it realistically, it’s a heavy truck. Also, a lot of folks aren’t liking the lack of a regular/standard cab. This is only because of CAFE standards and the fact that, if a vehicle has a larger footprint, the mpg on avg counts less across the lineup than if it had a smaller footprint. This is why you don’t see many regular cabs anymore, yes it’s sad that we can’t go out and buy a proper midsize regular cab with a v6 that’s been in trucks for decades. But they’re trying to reach a new market and that apparently isn’t me, a diehard chevy fan.
Been driving a Colorado with the 3.6 SIDI DOHC VVT. Its awesome! Reasonably economical (23-27 mpg at 79-65 mph). Just finished a trip Tucson to Denver and back. Got 23.4 mpg round-trip with cruise control set at 79………… Hard to complain about!