Chevrolet has finally revealed to the world the Colorado ZR2 concept, which we have been waiting for for quite some time now. Though not confirmed for production, the concept looks more like a production show truck than a non-production concept truck. If we all shout loud enough and flash our money around, it will hopefully encourage Chevrolet to green-light this Ford F-150 Raptor fighter.
To whit some history: the ZR2 nameplate is 20 years old. Back in 1994, Chevrolet first introduced the ZR2 package in the compact S-10 pickup. Soon after, it was added to the S-Series Blazer in 1996. The package was available through 2003 on the S-10 and in 2005 on the Blazer. And it made it to the last-generation Silverado in concept form, as well.
Visually, the 2015Â Colorado ZR2 concept sets itself apart from basic models with noticeably higher ground clearance and more extreme approach and departure angles at 30.7 and 22.7 degrees, respectively, versus the 25 and 21 degrees of the 2015 Colorado Z71. The new fascias also feature integrated, flip-out aluminum tow hooks, with a built-in winch in the front. The rear, however, sacrifices the CornerStep bumper for a better departure angle.
From the ground-up, the Colorado ZR2 is seemingly built for intense rock climbing and fording water, as well as a spirited run through some mountain trails. It also has technology and stuff. And the 2.8L Duramax diesel engine that will roll out next year. More on that in a moment.
For now, take note of the mono-tube coil-over shock absorbers by King Off-Road Racing Shocks, which are designed for greater suspension travel and feature remote-mounted fluid reservoirs that add to the capability of the 2015 Colorado ZR2 concept. The reservoirs for the front shocks are accessible and mounted in the wraparound portion of the front fascia. They are complimented by front control arms specific for the ZR2.
Of course, the impressive feature set doesn’t stop there, as the Colorado ZR2 concept also features ever-necessary electronic-locking front and rear differentials, which are capable of distributing torque to 275/65R18 off-road tires, mounted on custom 18-inch aluminum multi-spoke, bead-lock wheels accented by wheel flares. As such, the footprint of the Colorado ZR2 is wider than that of the base models. The center section of the wheel design has a raw aluminum appearance with black accents, while the bolt-on bead-lock cover is orange-anodized aluminum.
The truck bed of the Colorado ZR2 features a full-size matching spare wheel/tire assembly with a quick-release handle. The bed also features the protective spray-in bed liner available on production Colorado models, GearOn accessories and a 48-inch Hi-Lift jack. Meanwhile, the exterior is painted Cyprus Green with Henna Orange accents. ZR2 badges are all over the place and a hood insert nods to GM’s Heavy Duty trucks.
Back to the technology and stuff. Within its Jet Black interior, the Colorado ZR2 incorporates a ready-to-go auxiliary toggle and four additional toggle switches: two for winch in and winch out operation; and two for the electronic front- and rear-locking differentials.
Back to the engine. The 2.8L Duramax mated to a six-speed automatic transmission, in this application, is estimated at 181 horsepower at 3,400 rpm and 369 pound-feet of torque at 2,000 rpm. The combination is most likely an indicator of what we can expect when the engine is officially offered next year on the 2016 Colorado and 2016 GMC Canyon.
Now, join us in the officially-unofficial movement to get Chevrolet to bring the Colorado ZR2 to market as soon as possible.
Update: it looks like Chevy will bring this concept to life as the 2017 Colorado ZR2.
[nggallery id=694]
Comments
This concept just turned me on!
Bummer the diesel isn’t starting off with the 8 speed, they really should have done that so they could get the highest mpg number possible to impress the “press”. That high mpg number is worth a lot in marketing these days, plus if it’s high enough it would help justify this trucks existence, not that I personally think it needs that. Cool concept, I hope it makes it into production and I hope I come into some money that would allow me to afford it’s likely 40k price tag.
Looks really good!! This should definatly be produced!! Along with crew cab/short bed version (same wheel base anyway).
181hp = MASSIVE FAIL
181hp in 4500 lb truck = slug
That estimate had better be VERY low or that diesel had better be a no cost “upgrade” or it fails miserably.
K.
I don’t think this truck is for everyday driving even though you can. It’s a diesel engine and has low HP probably for offroading to improve traction. The torque is off the charts at 369 pound feet. This truck will never get stuck cause all that torque and low HP will get it out of any mess. This truck will perform great off road, but probably frustrating of highways and everyday driving. I think its awesome, but I agree with you to a point if I was using it everyday id want more HP, personally Id like 350 HP plus 369 lb ft torque and lower 2 inches.
Those are the specs for the I4 duramax that is going to be offered in all canyon and colorado trucks, not just this ZR2 concept. It puts out pathetic power numbers both for its displacement and for the hefty weight of this truck. Like the LFX this is looking to turn into another brain dead GM Engine choice that is going to be a fail. It will work if it puts out epic fuel economy numbers, is a zero cost “upgrade” or both (neither is likely). GM should have gone with the VM Motori 3.0L V6 like Chrysler did, instead they went with an inferior 2.8L I4 and they’re going to end up suffering for it.
Don’t overlook 369 lb-ft.
It should go without saying that buyers don’t get a diesel for the horsepower. It’s also a conservative estimate. There’s nothing wrong with these preliminary specs. And no, GM couldn’t use the VM Motori diesel, even though GM engineered it.
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/07/fiat-chrysler-3-0l-diesel-v6-is-actually-a-gm-engine/
No, diesel purchasers do no purchase for hp, but a diesel needs to have at least *somewhat* decent ability to produce peak hp or its only useful in niche applications. The specs are for the production engine as per GM reps at the LA auto show. GM owned 50% of VM Motori. OF COURSE they could have negotiated a license to build the 3.0L V6 before exiting the company. They did not for the same reason they do most things, they have a bungling and incompetent management.
Did you ever hear of aftermarket tuning? I personally have friends with chevy 2500 duramax pickups that are putting out 600 horsepower. They drive these trucks every day and get 16-18 mpg. If enough people buy the 2.8 duramax the aftermarket crowd will step up to the plate.
So now we have to void the warranties on our brand new trucks and chip them for adequate performance? Pass.
Horsepower doesn’t really mean anything when you’re talking about diesel engines. My ’07 Duramax only has 360hp, but it terms of pulling power it destroys a gas V8 with the same horsepower. Torque is what really matters when you want to get something moving or accelerate. 369 lb-ft is very impressive out of a 4 cylinder engine.
You have no clue how a diesel works do you? Torque… It’s what moves you.
Horsepower is how hard you hit the Wall, torque is how far you take the wall with you.
Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races…
Need more?
Highly recommend you actually understand what you write about before you try glibly stating that someone else is ignorant.
First point, torque AT THE WHEELS moves you. You don’t understand this. You don’t understand what a transmission is nor how it works. But torque at the wheels is going to be DIRECTLY related to power production from the engine.
A lot of things are involved in winning a race, and those differing inputs vary based on the type of race. If you are talking about a drag race, which is most reference when they make idioitic statements like you just did it is ENGINE power and not torque that is primary engine variable involved in dictating who will win.
Try thinking about your other vapid remarks about hitting a wall and taking a wall with you. REALLY try thinking about them. You will (hopefully) realize that your comments are ridiculous and completely nonsensical. You would have made a statement of equal intelligence if you had said purple monkey dishwasher.
Wow…Down voted for being correct. Gotta love the internet!
For those that don’t understand, let’s run a hypothetical. We have an arbitrary transmission capable of holding the output without blowing up – let’s say a CVT, though a typical automatic transmission is just an approximation of one. You have a 500lb load that you need to get up the hill.
You have two choices for an engine:
1. An engine that makes 100,000 lb-ft of torque and 50 peak horsepower
2. An engine that makes 100 lb-ft of torque and 200 peak horsepower
The engine that makes 200 horsepower will get the load up the hill…4 times as fast! Shocking, isn’t it?
I can sit here at my desk and make 1,000 lb-ft of torque without trying too hard. But I can’t cheat horsepower, and that’s why I don’t make a good truck.
Lets be honest, this is a pretty poor analogy. Just go and drive a diesel Colorado first and then have a whinge to me if it doesn’t surprise you. If you think it needs more power, I’ll send you over a 15 year old naturally aspirated 3 litre Toyota Hilux diesel, the epitomy of a slug. Common Rail VGT diesels of the modern era such as those in the new Colorado are more than capable enough to get the job done. Just remember over here in Australia the vast majority of industry use these vehicles like full size trucks, because Silverados and F trucks are both rare and very expensive. They are a damn sight more capable than what 181 hp would suggest, you wont appreciate how well they go until you sit your ass in it and take it for a drive. In the meantime I would suggest you search RG Holden Colorado on youtube. There are plenty of videos that show perfectly the capability of this powertrain package.
To right = I am Sorry my friend, but you don’t know a thing about Diesels. When the in Dodge truck diesel was first offered it had about 160 hp and Ford close to the same but they had plenty of Torque and this was 3/4 and 1 ton trucks. I own a 3/4 Chevy with 185 hp 410 TQ turbo 6.5 diesel that would out run my 350 gas engine and it had 250 hp and 320 TQ.
And your chevy is gutless on the highway, and can’t pass traffic for crap. THAT is the point here. 180hp driving a 4700lb (give or take) vehicle is not going to be capable of doing anything on the highway. Your 185 hp 3/4 ton will be substantially worse.
Your 185hp 3/4 ton would only outrun a 250hp powered vehicle if the 250hp vehicle had an absurdly stupid transmission in it or if it was absurdly heavy. You wouldn’t even be capable of passing a Hyundai Elantra with that truck if the Elantra driver decided to accelerate.
The world doesn’t need more douche trucks on highways, passing everything because they think they are entitled to do so.
right? You should change your online identifier to wrong!
TORQUE PEOPLE, TORQUE.
I will take torque over horsepower for everyday driving any day. Getting a heavier vehicle up to speed quickly is what torque allows. Ever seen a semi tractor without it’s trailer? It moves out! Horsepower is only advantageous when you have the luxury to go very fast.
It’s hard to believe the amount of whiners here. Consumers have been crying for diesels for years in the U.S. in vehicles smaller that heavy duty pickups and GM finally delivers and what do some of you do, whine.
The Colorado extended cab with the 2.5 four gas (don’t have weight for the diesel yet (anyone?)) weighs 4140 lbs in 4×4 form. 369 lb torque will MOVE this thing off the line without a problem. My ’96 Impala SS weighs over 4000 lbs and comes with 260 hp and 325 ft. lbs torque. It is the torque that kicks 5.0’s butts all day long.
I will buy this beautiful “concept” if they come out with it and enjoy the fuel economy that the diesel gives.
The six-speed will allow the engine to stay within it’s bandwidth and offer decent performance. I plan to use the truck for off-roading as well, and a diesel will be perfect for rock-crawling. Can’t wait.
Gentleman, 181 hp and 396 lbs torque are better than the first gen 5.9 cummins desiel which was 140 hp and 400 lbs of torque. 181 hp and 396 lbs of torque in a smaller truck than the Ram with the 5.9 cummins will be awesome. If any of you has driven the first gen 5.9 cummins Ram know what I mean. Torque is king! And a lot of fun!
Compare: First Gen Cummins 5.9 I-6: 140 hp, 400 lbs torque.
GM Duramax 2.8 : 181 hp, 396 lbs torque. Clear Winner!
It would be nice to see the tuners push this engine to 300 HP and 450-500 FT LBS. Most engines have that much room.
Now if GM can offer this in packages that will keep it $30K to no more than $40K.
When I said no decal trucks in the past this is what I meant. Now do not de-content it to the point it becomes a decal truck.
Look at the torque figures, not the outtight hp. We have this engine in the Aussie Colorado and they are no slouch. Drive one before you make bullshit comments, its not supposed to be a drag racer and its not a Silverado. Youll get a surprise when you stick the boot into it!
Many here do not understand diesels let alone turbocharged engine. Torque is a lost item on them.
We are just now seeing people putting Duramax engines in come older cars where they are seeing 1500 FT LBS and some decent HP readings. It is amazing what these new day hot rods are doing.
I can not count how many videos there are on the web of large diesel trucks out running a Viper etc with just a simple tune.
Like I have said so many Americans do not like Diesels just because they just do not understand them.
The only thing I do worry about is in this country it is getting more and more difficult to tune a Diesel with all the new laws and added emission equipment that also drives up the price.
Also I thing many don’t consider the 300+ HP V6 would also be offered.
NOBODY is going to be surprised when they put their “boot” into this truck. And NOBODY ever thought it was going to e a dragracer. But its piss poor specs indicate instead of being a decent all-around engine its just going to be a slug on the highway. This thing is going to struggle to pass a civic if the other driver accelerates at all.
In conclusion the only “bullshit comment” here was yours. You either don’t drive on the highway (in which case your opinion is not relevant to the discussion) or you have no understanding of power (in which case your opinion is not relevant to the discussion).
Go and drive one you dickhead, I live in the country and these Utes are our bread and butter in Australia, you can pass road trains easily (50 yards long and travel at 60 mph) let alone your shit box Civic. Do you not know what low down torque is?? These things sit on 1800-1900 rpm at 60 mph and will do 105 mph on a open road easy…
Look schmuck, the engine option will not be out for another year, so nobody can “go drive one”. What I *have* driven is a quab cab ecodiesel. You’re simple, so I will take the tim to point out to you that it uses a modern diesel (even more sophisticated than the embarassment going into this truck) with a higher power:weight ratio than this truck has, with a substantially superior transmission.
Here’s the fun part… IT IS STILL A SLUG. I can’t help it if you all drive like old women in Australia, *many* people in the United States don’t drive that way and will be sorely disappointed with the highway performance of this truck. Period. No matter how much you you want to whine about how special your diesels are, anything with a similar power:weight ratio as this truck is SEVERELY UNDERPOWERED. If you took a semester of physics 101, or even just had a day’s worth of empirical evidence you could dry your eyes off with your dress and realize how stupid you sound with your moaning.
The points you bring up announce your ignorance to the rest of the world, make you look stupid, and really should leave you feeling embarrassed. Top speed is irrelevant, bringing it up makes you look like a fool. Its not “top speed” that is relevant, its how long it takes you to get up to that 105 mph, which will be nearly forever in this slow trash. Cruising RPM is irrelevant, and bringing it up makes you look like a fool. Doubly so if the numbers you provided are correct (1800-1900 rpms at 60mph would be WAY high).
You guys allegedly speak English in Australia, go back and read what I actually wrote. This engine, in this truck, will SUCK on the highway. It will take FOREVER to pass anyone, and will NOT be able to pass a civic if the civic driver decides to put his foot into it at all.
As it currently stands this engine is going to FAIL miserably. Its only chance is if it is upgraded significantly or if it becomes a no cost upgrade over the LFX. Don’t hold out hope for either.
The LV3 and L83 are the only two engines that should have been offred in these trucks.
Here is a case one Right makes a wrong.
As you can see he has no real grasp of how a diesel works.
Also he has not counted how easy it is to tune a diesel for more power and never even having to turn a bolt on the engine itself.
If Gas engines could do this kind of torque we would not be seeing he HP reading we have now. This would not be a slug.
Many NHRA drivers are now using I6 engines with conservative power but high torque yields for sportsman racing. their are far from slugs with sub 10 sec quarter mile times.
As it is even with this engine as an option it will only account for a small volume of this models sales. The bulk will be for the V6.
Now I think it would be interesting to see a LNF Eco Turbo with 300 HP offered. I have this in my car now and with 340 FT LBS it would make a nice package for those who are afraid or do not understand diesels. It has max torque from 1800 RPM to 5300 RPM. With the new tranny they may be able to add more than the Solstice GXP 340 FT LBS.
Look muppet, you are just repeating the same junk from above. You accuse others of not understanding how things work when ironically you didn’t understand the post you are responding to. This engine is UNDER POWERED. It will be a SLUG on the highway. It makes exactly ZERO difference if you take 10,000 lb ft of torque at 100 rpm, and I make 175 lb ft of torque at 6000 rpm. I WILL PASS YOU ON THE HIGHWAY.
Honest to god, learn what a transmission is and how a gear works before posting. You will embarass yourself less.
I agree with Scott3. This right does indeed make a wrong. Just leave this conversation. Everyone is sick of seeing your BS!
I’m all for this, but I’d like more power and torque out that 2.8L diesel engine! I’d rather GM also offer the 3.6 twin turbo or 5.3L engines as options, in addition to this diesel on this truck!
Not going to happen on the 5.3 or the 3.6 TT.
I don’t think this is as bad as many of you are making it out to be.
Torque is what really matters in a truck. In addition, that HP figure really isnt that bad.
They are proposing: 181 hp and 369 lb-ft torque at 2,000 rpm
The last 2003 GMC Sonoma I had sported this engine: 120 hp (82–89 kW) @ 5200 RPM 140 lb·ft (176–190 N·m) @ 2800 RPM – We are talking 3 times the torque, 1.5 times the HP, at lower RPMs. The HIGHEST, most powerful Trim, The Vortec 4300 sported 180 hp (134 kW) @ 4400 RPM and 245 lb·ft (332 N·m) @ 2800 RPM – Once again, we are talking a hair more HP, and 50% more torque . I never heard anyone complain about either motor.
In 2013, the base Silverado sported a motor with 195 hp (145 kW) @ 4600 RPM and 260 lb·ft (353 N·m) @ 2800 RPM
In 2012, the Ram 1500 base engine was 215 hp (160 kW) 235 lb·ft (319 N·m). That torque wasn’t hit until 4000 RPM.
The 2013 Base silverado weighed 4,596 lbs to 5,487 lbs
The Colorado weighs 3,930 lbs to 4,520 lbs
2013 Silverado: 23.57 lbs per HP. 17.68 lbs per ft-lb of torque
2015 Colorado diesel: 21.71 lbs per HP. 10.65 lbs per ft-lb or torque
7.9% increase in HP/LB and Thats a 40% increase in torque per lb, and it all hits at a lower RPM.
Lets compare the big diesel:
365 hp (272 kW) @ 3200 RPM – 660 lb·ft (895 N·m) @ 1600 RPM. 5,717 lbs to 6,689 lbs (2500HD)
15.66 lbs/HP and 8.66 lbs/ft-lb torque.
That is a 38.6% increase in HP per lb, and a 23% increase in torque per lb
What this should tell us: This engine is in no way underpowering the Colorado. In fact, it should outperform a Silverado with a base engine. It should also be comparible to a mid-engine Silverado performance-wise, which isn’t too bad given its a lower price point, higher fuel economy, and a smaller truck.
It way outperforms historical versions of the vehicle, and should be more than enough power for the typical user. The extremely high torque levels are unheard of in this small of an engine, and I anticipate day-by-day driving experiences to be excellent- Similar to driving a V8 powered Silverado.
I hope that you realize that you are comparing base engine options that virtually nobody purchased at the time precisely *because* they were such garbage. The only people that did buy them were to go after an extremely low end truck that was probably purchased for $10K+ cheaper than what a diesel canyon/colorado will retail for. I’m sure if you lopped $10K off the price of a diesel canyon or colorado you wouldn’t hear complaints about the anemic power figures either.
Diesel colorados and canyons are going to be very heavy. The VM motori 3.0L V6 diesel used by Ram weighs in close to 500 lbs, this engine is going to be in the same ballpark. It will probably weigh in at an easy 100 lbs more than the LFX, making the poor underpowered engine have to work that much harder to move the truck along.
Dad always taught me you cant put brains in a pumpkin. Here is his proof, think you need to change your name to wrong old mate!
Not even worth the reply.
1. The problem with this is that the Vortec 4300 weighed around 500 lbs. So the diesel adds a few lbs- does that really change the equation? 100 lbs is more weight, but is a 2.5% increase THAT much more weight when your already around the 4000 lb mark? ? If I lost 100 lbs, would I expect my entire driving experience to change?
2. The Vortec 4300 and the Duramax Diesel I referenced were the top engine trim options, not bases.
3. You are right that few people take the base trim- about 10% according to Ford. But what I hear you essentially saying is that the Diesel is a big upgrade from the base motor, but not as good as a beefy V8. While there is something to be said about being a purist, The Diesel is more powerful than the most powerful engine of 10 years ago, and is a significant improvement over the “base” engine option. Those in itself make it more than worthy.
The 3.6L option available today is 305 HP and 275 lb-torque, but not until 4000 RPM. If you look at the HP and torque curve for the 3.6L LFX, per SAE Certification, at 2000 RPM you see 220 ft-lb of torque. at 3400 RPM, you see about 160 HP. The reason why this is important is simple- consider your driving behavior. How often do you run your truck over 5000 RPM in real-world driving? You don’t. the beauty of this diesel is the torque and HP curves. You see the peak power where you use it.
I see this with a lot of engines today- on paper they are great, but they don’t have the power where you need it. Peak HP means little if you can never use it. Now compare that with the torque and HP curve of the Diesels out there. They peak torque not at 4800 RPM, but at or below 2000, once again, where you use it.
When I tune my race cars, I don’t have them tune it for peak HP, I tune it for a good smooth power band and work hard to get my lower-end numbers up, because in racing- or real world driving- you need that torque and HP at different speeds and gear ratios. It is one of the reasons I have always respected the BMW engines. They may not have great numbers, but if you’ve driven one you know the idea of “the power is there where and when you need it”, which goes well.
When I had my 4.7L ram, on paper it outperformed my 5.3 liter chevy engine, but once again in real world driving experiences, the chevy engine gives me power when I need it while the 4.7L was never able to respond. If you look at the power curves for the 4.7L, at 2500 RPM, 280 lb-torque and 120 HBP. The 265 hp wasn’t available until 5200 RPM, and the torque curve looks like pikes peak hitting 325 right at 3600 RPM, but dropping more than 40 +/- 1000 RPM. That meant to do any sort of towing or similar, you’ve got to run the engine right around 3000-4000 RPM at all times, limiting you to 180 HP, in a full size truck, and dropping fuel economy to dismal numbers.
If I look at the torque curve for the 2.8L Diesel, I’m darn impressed. While official SAE figures are not yet available to my understanding. We are looking at about 300 ft-lb or more from 1600 RPM to 4000 RPM. If you averaged the power at each PM point, you’ll see that the Diesels torque out performs even top trim non-diesel engine options.
But what about HP? While this is certainly “less important” than most make it out to be. (HP is all about compensation, right??) Your looking at about 115 HP at 2000 RPMS, smoothly rising up to 181. That trusty 4300 Vortec? 90 HP at 2000 RPMs. The current 3.6L LFX? 85 HP. The current top engine, the 3.6L LFX is outperformed by this 2.8L diesel in both HP and torque until 3000 RPMs. When I drive trucks, I spent most my time under 3000 RPM- don’t you?
The 3.6L LFX does offer higher HP figures from 3500 RPM and above, but sports 30% less torque over that portion of the band.
In short, comparing the TOP trim engine to the diesel per your suggestion, in real world driving, the Diesel will outperform the 3.6L engine at virtually any point in the RPM spread, even if on paper its numbers lag in the realm of HP. Under 3000 RPM or so, the diesel outperforms it drastically on all metrics sporting 40% more torque and 27% more HP, which is where most truck users use it. On top of that, while somewhat of a speculation, most analysists are suggesting fuel economy above 30mpg,
In short, 16% better fuel economy, 27% more HP, and 40% more torque in normal driving conditions than the current top-of-the-line model. To me that is pretty darn compelling the more I look at it.
The entire point that I raised, that I have maintained throughout this entire string of comments, is that this truck is too heavy and underpowered for functional highway driving. It will be fine driving around town, or if you never drive quickly or pass anyone. Once you want to pass a line of traffic by going from 60-80 or 60-85 this thing is going to fall flat on its face. I do this *daily*. Anyone who wants to get anywhere on the roads I commute on does this *daily*. This truck is going to have issues just merging in with high speed traffic in some instances. Its going to be ATROCIOUS trying to merge into traffic while towing anything.
If you drive slowly, or never have to pull anything and merge you might not notice these limitations. Although one would wonder at the reasoning behind paying a premium for this motor if you never do anything with it.
Get your head out of your ass dickhead and open your mind. You can’t make a comment on something you haven’t driven. You won’t have any drama with a truck like this in the conditions you’ve mentioned. As for Aussies driving like Grandmas we are still, only just, a V8 country. Every car I’ve got other than my work truck (PX Ford Ranger) is a V8, one a Holden Ute, the other a 63 Impala and I drive the wheels of the effing things. If you think the Colorado is too gutless, just go and buy a Silverado. Personally I think most of you guys will be blown away how well these 2.8 Duramax diesels go. Trust me, I’ve done a burnout with one…
Just did a little more homework and found the MY 15 Holden Colorados equipped with the Duramax 2 put out 200 hp and 369 lb ft.
I don’t need to drive this truck to understand it is woefully underpowered. You have two major problems here. Problem number one is you lack a simple high school level understanding of physics. You are wholly incapable of understanding what power is, and appropriate power requirements for a given situation. Your second problem is that you’re from a backwards country where people clearly drive like old women, you have no concept of how the roads and traffic patterns work here.
You are wrong. You have been wrong. At those specs the engine will be a monumental failure. If you want to keep running your mouth then put your money where your mouth is. We will define terms for success and arrange for an escrow service to hold our money for the allotted timeframe defined in the wager. Winner takes all. PM me or post an email address I can reach you at and I will set it up.
I am happy to arrange for an escrow service to
No point arguing with you mate, we’re not getting anywhere here…. What do you drive now that makes you so goddamn special? Can’t wait till that truck comes out in the states and people realise it does have a bit of get up and go. Numbers on a bit of paper don’t always relate to real world drivability and you’re too pig-headed to keep an open mind and drive the bloody thing when it eventually comes out. GM are trying something left field for the US market, something from past experience I know will work extremely well. This truck will have more than enough power, torque and off-road ability to please a lot of people and I applaud GM for trying something different. If the world were run by blokes as conservative as you we’d be still all driving bloody T models!
Checked out the performance times for 0-60 on this truck, 9.8 secs, not too shabby for a vehicle of this size and weight. Electronically limited to 110 mph, and reaches this figure in 35 seconds from a standing start. Still not bad for a truck that’ll get 30 mpg….
Here’s what I don’t get about you saying these trucks will be a dog to pass things in…I own a 2001 Crew Cab F350 Dually with the 7.3 Powerstroke (bonestock) never once have I had a problem passing anyone on the highway. Even with the a trailer on it. So to get to my point (if I remember correctly) the PSD was rated at 210ish HP at 3,000 rpm and something like 425 LB – FT of torque at 2000 rpm. So you have a 920 lb motor that produced a mere 16% more horse power and 15% more torque in a truck that weighs somewhat like 7500 lbs and have no problem passing people….I would say torque is kinda important. Besides don’t fight with the Aussie man….They have this truck you don’t, I would take a real world view over your keyboard hero Ford 6.0L PSD driving ass. Your trolling makes all the rest of us Americans look like freaking idiots.
Shut up already! Look at the thumbs up and down rating at the bottom of your ridiculous posts!
Scott3 is right. Torque. Ever drive a Golf with the tiny, low HP 1.9L TDI? The thing will pull uphill in overdrive, where so many high HP gasoline powered cars shift down and become asthmatic.
This will be the best engine in the Colorado / Canyon by far.
The above ZR2 would be an excellent $25K truck. For the likely north of $40K, trademark “New GM” insanity pricing, one would be wise to choose a Cummins Ram 4×4 that’ll put hair on your chest.
This concept looks great and need to be offered (I assume the V6 gas engine will be available too with the ZR2 trim). I have a 2015 Colorado ordered and will be buying a 2016 ZR2 if it goes to production. I owned three ZR2s back in the S-10 days and loved them.
I’m a sucker for this rig. I’ll probably buy it regardless but would prefer the short bed crew cab with 8spd 5.3 gas V8.
If I end up with the 4 pot Duramax I sure hope they tune it to 220hp and 400 lb ft and mate it with the the required 8spd.
What kind of 3rd member axle size are they talking? Better to be bigger.
Shut-up and take my money
They have to bring this truck into production iv ben waiting for them to bring back a zr2 package on something. I’ll be first in line to order one .
I’m in, all in! on this bad ass truck! even like the color though I’ll probably go with Laser Blue, Cyber Gray, Brownstone!
A 2.8 diesel? 181 hp? Are you kidding me?! That truck will fail from the get go unless you offer other options. Not everyone wants, nor likes, a diesel anyway. You better think this one over GM. A 4.3 Vortec should be the minimum with a 5.2 or even a 5.7 option.
Don’t comment if you won’t at least test drive this truck. Keep an open mind and when you do test drive it just may supprise you.
I really like the look of the Colorado and I am excited about the diesel, but this ZR2 package is what’s selling me hard! Looks amazing and has the off-road mechanicals to back up its off-road warrior look. It has to be offered in crew cab if I’m going to buy though, gotta think about having a kid in the next 3-5 years… I need a full back seat. My one gripe is that GM isn’t thinking forward at all by putting a six speed on that motor. It should be an 8 speed like the Jeep’s 3L diesel. That is the future (and a nice bump to Chevy’s average brand fuel economy. Please make this GM, and please but an 8 speed in it!
I would hate to be an Engineer for GM. They design things like the Revolutionary 4.5 Duramax, only to watch Dodge take the Crown for 1/2 ton MPG on diesel trucks, 7 years after the 4.5 could have been in production. Now they design the Colorado ZR2 but in will never go in to production. You may ask how I know. Because once they design something that I would buy, they never produce it. I know GM as the company that cries WOLF. What a TEASER.
Bring this truck to market. I will order one as soon as it is possible to do so.