There was one important detail missing from the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Duramax first drive event. Chevrolet was happy to talk up the efficiency, smoothness and refinement of the 2.8-liter Duramax turbo-diesel engine, which may now reside under the hood of your very own 2016 Colorado, but fuel economy figures were absent.
This can be attributed to the scrutiny of diesel powerplants as of recent, thanks to what continues to unfold at Volkswagen Group. The EPA will subject the 2016 Colorado Duramax to extra scrutiny during its testing to ensure there isn’t any cheating occurring, but Chevrolet isn’t sweating it, it simply doesn’t have officially fuel economy numbers from the government.
But, Emissions Analytics, which supplies Motor Trend and Truck Trend its real-world MPG numbers, has finished its controlled testing of the 2016 Colorado Duramax, and it has achieved some pretty good numbers.
In city environments, the turbo-diesel truck returned 23.2 mpg. In highway scenarios, the truck became extremely frugal, returning 31.4. For a combined average, that’s 26.3 mpg, making the 2016 Colorado 3 mpg more efficient in the city, and 4 mpg more on the highway.
These numbers also back up General Motors statement of being the “most efficient truck in its class” by a long shot.
The numbers also reflect what we were able to achieve in our first drive of the 2016 Colorado Duramax, with 24 mpg around town, and just over 31 mpg during highway cruises.
Combine this with the 7,700-pound towing rating, and the $3,700 option price begins to look like quite the value proposition.
Comments
How does that compare to what you guys rate the ram ecodiesel at?
The Ram is a full size truck. Bigger heavier more frontal area. The GM truck is not a full size truck. Smaller etc, so it better damn well do a whole lot better than the ram and not just by a couple.
The ram officially gets 28mpg on the highway and up to 34mpg in real world driving on the highway:
.
So all around about the same. But every review I’ve ever read on the Ram 3.0L diesel makes it clear it’s a DOG acceleration wise. I’d assume it comes down to supersize vs just right for a customer comparing the Colorado to the Ram.
I favor just right.
Well yeah it makes it the most fuel efficient mid size truck, but the point is to kick the Ram ecodiesel’s ass. A smart guy could make the Ram ecodiesel do better.
People have to stop comparing this truck to the Ram ecodiesel. The only thing in common is the type of power plant (diesel). The Colorado has a completely different market of buyers who are coming from SUV’s, cars, or just don’t want a huge full size truck. For those who only want the best mileage, this truck should do it but not by much over the Ram. If they had the 8-speed with this diesel, then we would see a larger difference, which I am sure will come in the next year or so. GM isn’t going to throw every trick in their bag out in the first year. Ford has done one or two little improvements every year to their trucks and people brag about it being a great marketing strategy (something new every year). GM does it and gets crapped on.
Even though the Ram is larger and has a larger diesel engine, the reviews on its performance from a power stand point have not been the greatest. Many “professional” reviewers have said it lacks get up and go and feels lethargic. I haven’t read/listened to one review on the Colorado that isn’t positive about the power and performance. It comes down to hp/torque but also gearing and rear axle ratios too. If the Colorado gets 1-2 mpg better than the Ram but performs better (power/weight ratio and overall get up and go), that’s a win for me.
you couldn’t be more right
I have a diesel jeep liberty SUV for daily driving (better mpg and easier to park etc) and my silverado for hauling stuff….. I think this Colorado could be the best of both worlds.
I think it was MotorTrend that was getting 33mpg hwy and noted that had they driven a little more carefully definitely could have squeezed more out of it.
I wonder how it will act under load when towing
Autoweek said they got 36MPG the quote quote
“On a short 40-mile fuel economy run in a 2WD Colorado, we saw 36 mpg from gentle throttle application, a great number for a 4,500-pound pickup. Don’t expect EPA highway ratings quite that high, though. If the Colorado could sip fuel at that rate for a whole 21-gallon tank, it would deliver more than a 750-mile range”
Read more: http://autoweek.com/article/car-reviews/first-drive-2016-chevrolet-colorado-duramax#ixzz3ofe7bXMG
to help give you an idea of towing …. my jeep liberty with the 2.8 diesel gets 20+ or so depending on speed
(crappy dodge transmission) 25 mpg at 55 MPH 18 at 75-80 MPH with an aluminum trailer and 2 full size
4 wheedlers about 3k pounds with everything and gear.
If this plays as most other GM vehicles it will easily match or beat the EPA numbers.
I have noted for many years GM is conservative on their numbers in most vehicles I have owned. I generally see more MPG than listed or at worst case the exact numbers.
GM also has been conservative on HP numbers too as we often find more HP than listed on nearly all their engines.
While others get gigged for over estimating MPG and HP like Hyundai and Ford GM has never been gigged for that and often proven by dyno test in magazines for holding back on the numbers.
I would not be shocked to generally see this truck beat the EPA numbers. GM would never take the risk of it doing worse so I expect the EPA number is worst case. If it failed to meet or beat GM would have a PR nightmare selling this engine. They know it and most here know it.
31 mpg, now we’re talking. I bet it’ll flirt with 34 with a manual 6speed and the right driver. GM’s balls need to drop and offer this option.
My 2015 Ram Long Horn has 16450 miles on it.Most of these have been hyway.It is showing a average of 25.1. I just took a trip out west in Colorado moutains from Lake of Ozarks.In 2561 miles.Two people and luggage in my 2015 Cruze Diesel,driving 75-80 on interstates and averaged 41.1 for the whole trip.
I got to be honest I was hoping for more. When you consider the different in cost for diesel vs unleaded, diesels have to average at least 4-5 MPG to see any cost benefit in fuel economy. With the high stick cost 2-3 MPG falls short, when you can by the V6 at a lower sticker and save on fuel costs. In North Carolina diesel averages anywhere from 25 to 30 cents more per gallon, so you got to average at least 4 MPG better than regular gasoline to break even on fuel cost. 2 to 3 MPG misses the mark.
Without fuel economy being a major factor in the decision making process, buyers now have to determine if they want the HP of the V6 or the torque of the Duramax. Most truck guys who want torque aren’t apposed to full size trucks. People who want HP in a small frame would do better with V6. If you want torque in a small frame then the Duramax is perfect, but now your talking about a very small niche market. If Chevy plans is to phase in improvements over time to improve MPG, then the 2016 Duramax isn’t the truck you want. You’d do better waiting until 2018, but by then the Duramax brand will suffer and I expect there will better competition within the class.
just took delivery of a new 2016 Z71 4×4 crew cab short box . Mine is a V6 . for sure not the mileage or towing of the diesel , but this is great vehicle .If you read MT TOTY they talk about the interior and how everything is well laid out with the right touch and feel. I have to agree . The back seat is decent for adults , the ride with Z71 is better than expected. the refinement and comfort rivals a full size . Like some one said in an earlier post , its the RIGHT SIZE for many buyers. What GM needs to figure out quickly is how to ad capacity to build . I ordered in June as soon as the configurer became available , took over 5 months to get . Could not be happier with mine , but only have had 4 days .