2015 Colorado Features 3.6L V6 Over 4.3L V6 Because Of Fuel Economy
40
Sponsored Links
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.
Sponsored Links
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!