Chevrolet unveiled the 2016 Colorado Duramax yesterday with complete specifications. And they’re pretty impressive if you ask us.
The 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Duramax will make use of the 2.8-liter four-cylinder turbo-diesel engine, found in many GM products across the globe. Dropping the diesel four-cylinder under the hood allows the truck to tow up to 7,700 pounds with ease, producing 369 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RPM.
Those are impressive specifications, but what about big-brother Silverado?
Chevrolet also recently revealed the 2016 Silverado with refreshed looks. At this point, mechanical specifications seem to be staying identical to the 2015 Silverado, though, Chevrolet did mention an expanded use of the eight-speed automatic transmission in the Silverado lineup.
And that’s where we want your opinion. Would you choose the 2016 Chevrolet Silverado with the petrol powerplant? Or, does the 2016 Colorado Duramax tickle your fancy? Let’s explore a bit more.
Chevrolet says the 2016 Colorado Duramax will net a premium of $3,730 over a similarly equipped Colorado with the LFX 3.6-liter V6 engine. Potential buyers must pony up for the crew cab LT or Z71 trim to equip their 2016 Colorado with the 2.8-liter Duramax diesel, too. Our math shows a $32,950 price tag.
Using current 2015 Silverado prices, an LT trim crew cab, with the EcoTec3 6.2-liter V8 engine rings in at $34,768. Why did we choose the 6.2-liter V8? Because, we wanted to make this choice even tougher. The 6.2-liter can tow up 12,000 pounds without the need for diesel, and provides 460 lb-ft of torque at 4,100 RPM.
We’d argue fuel economy numbers, but GM hasn’t provided official, or even estimates, of how frugal the 2016 Colorado Duramax will be at the pump. We can imagine it’s a bit more dainty than a Silverado crew cab, though.
Now that we’ve laid the basics out, it’s your turn to talk. Which truck takes the cake here, our dear readers? The diesel sipping Colorado, or the punchy-petrol Silverado 1500? Vote and sound off down below.
Comments
I’d go mid-trim optioned Silverado with the 4.3. Solid motor with solid specs and solid MPG.
The 3.6 is a $1200 upgrade over the 4cyl. They should’ve made the diesel $1000-1500 on top of that.
As they’ve said, this engine is used all over the world, so that development costs are already covered. Why not make it a sales success and not price gouge to much.
I really like both. And I’m glad they brought the Colorado back. It’s not for me though. I’m a big guy and I like more room. But I think it’s a fantastic truck. So I’d take the Silverado. But I’d really like to see them finish the 4.5 duramax and put it in the 1500. Throw in the new 9-10 speed auto in it. And give it some power. I just want to see gm get aggressive. Stop playing it so safe with the trucks.
The decision would be made based on need. They are in different segments and serve different customers.
Full sized or midsized?
As much as I like the look of the Silverado the fuel economy benefits of the Colorado would tip it.
“Using current 2015 Silverado prices, an LT trim crew cab, with the EcoTec3 6.2-liter V8 engine rings in at $34,768. ”
Except they do not sell the 6.2 in the LT trim, you need at least the LTZ trim which is over 40k in a crew cab config, not quite the same as you are mentioning.
Try around 50k for ltz w/6.2.
I would go with the diesel Colorado. In the Midwest diesel is currently about 10 cents/gallon cheaper than regular petro. Having owned 2 TDI’s I know that a diesel vehicle can exceed the manufactures fuel economy estimates (an unknown with the Colorado as of right now) by a significant margin. Also, my 2004 Sierra 2500 HD diesel is way to big for my needs and I think that Colorado would be a better fit.
I think both of these trucks are above the competition. I drive a 2014 1500 and love it, but when i saw that they were putting the Duramax in the new Colorado it really made me think about going the other way when its released.
Now we need the 4.5L Duramax in the 1/2 ton trucks
They need to make the Colorado more affordable even with the new desiel engine. Bottom Line. It’s still a midsize truck. Love the desiel though. It’s the future of fuel economy
They need to make the Colorado more affordable even with the new desiel engine. Bottom Line. It’s still a midsize truck
We need the 4.5 desiel in the 1500 series finish what you started first. Please go back to the old ways of being the leaders in design and future of the automotive industry thank you heart beat of America for ever. Don’t want to change manufacturers it up to you to keep us wanting more
If it were possible to get the Silverado you mention at the price you mention I would go that route… but since I’m unable to come within $10,000 of your figure I might go with the Colorado.(actually the canyon since I like the seats better).
Problem in Canada is that a Colorado is more expensive then a similarli equiped silverado so its a question of do you pay a premium just for a smaller truck ? Answer is no.
Put the regular duramax in the 1/2 ton silverado.
I like the new Colorado but coming from a 07 Tahoe I prefer the size of the Silverado. I will buy a Silverado tomorrow if it was a diesel… being 2016 and that I drive my vehicles to well over 200 000 miles I’m not interested in the mpg’s of a V8…. I want the better MPG’s of a diesel…
SO Please GM take on Ford and Dodge and give us a Duramax 1500….
I’m in the market for a new truck, love the economy and power of the ecoboost F150 but I’m a chevy man…. now if the 1500 Silverado comes with a Duramax I’m in…..
The Silverado 1500 with the 6.2 liter engine is only available in the LTZ or High country trim levels. You can not get the big 6.2 in the LT or any other lower trim level as mentioned in this article. You can purchase the GMC canyon Denali fully loaded with the 2.8 duramax for around $47,000. That is at least $10k less than the LTZ Silverado or SLE GMC. I would go for the midsize truck with the Duramax unless you plan to tow 8000lbs or more on a regular basis. You are going to average 24-27 mpg in the baby Duramax compared to 16-18 in the Big 6.2 V8 gas engine.