2016 GMC Canyon Duramax Diesel: First Drive
20
Sponsored Links
The 2016 GMC Canyon Duramax and 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Duramax represent a pair of hotly anticipated trucks finally coming to market. When put another way, it means the US market finally has a set of what some call “real trucks” (you know, the ones without spark plugs), in a far more manageable package compared to GM’s behemoth Chevrolet Silverado HD and GMC Sierra HD trucks. More of an every-day-HD, if you will.
The gasoline engine GMC Canyon was plenty fine to drive (as was the 2016 Chevrolet Colorado Duramax, which you can read all about here), and remains one of the fastest selling vehicles on the market. Even after a year of production. But the 2.5L four cylinder doesn’t do much for output and the 3.6L V6 engine power band rests in the higher RPMs, which isn’t very fitting for a truck. And until my continued petition for GM to fit the 4.3L V6 into the midsize trucks becomes a reality (if ever), the 2.8L Duramax diesel will hands-down be the engine you’ll want for the GMC Canyon.
Why? Because torque. Because the sweet sound of a turbo spool. And because fuel economy.
With 181 hp and 369 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RPM, the 2016 Canyon Duramax has 100 lb-ft of more twisting force than the 3.6L V6, while churning at 2,000 RPM less, which goes through a standalone six-speed automatic transmission. This low-end power provides sufficient get-up, and is more ideal for towing. Of which, the Canyon D-Max is rated to pull 7,700 pounds in 2WD configuration, and 7,600 pounds with the 4WD configuration. That’s your race car and a trailer. Or your landscaping business. But more than likely, it’s going to feel like the trailer and jet skis that you occasionally use aren’t even there. Finally, there’s the metric of fuel economy.
As a diesel, the mileage return has been anticipated to be superior to the gasoline offerings. Currently, the verdict is still out on EPA mileage (thank you, Volkswagen), but the trip computer on the 2016 Canyon Duramax I drove, along with a co-driver, measured at 24 mpg average over the span of stop-go Manhattan, New York traffic for about a 45 minutes, and then another hour or so on US 9 into the scenic New York countryside. That’s with pushing the truck a bit, yet the average mileage is a about 2-3 mpg better than we’ve seen from the gas-powered variants of GM’s middleweight trucks.
The low-end grunt of the 2016 GMC Canyon Duramax gives way to sensations that could only be found in heftier machines until now. Not to mention, the signature Duramax diesel refinement remains true here. The diesel clack is hushed to a minimum, especially in the cabin (I happen to like the burly sound of a diesel, but I understand most don’t). The technology options for the truck are class-leading, which include Apple CarPlay and OnStar 4G LTE WiFi. Overall, driving the 2016 Canyon Duramax is a lot like driving the gasoline one. Except there’s more weight on the nose, which is noticeable under braking (some of my fellow media colleagues didn’t seem to notice, but who knows how much time they have driven the lighter versions of the trucks to reference). Not to say the stopping distance is alarming by any means, but the desires for a slightly tighter front suspension and more robust brakes are there. Minor details.
Here’s the kicker, though. The 2.8L Duramax engine is a $3,700 option. Not outrageous, but the truck I drove was over $45,000. Yes, it was loaded (yet still not a Denali). But as it currently stands, GMC is only offering crew-cab Canyon Diesel configurations, at least for now. The cheapest you can get a Canyon Duramax for the time being is just over $38,000. That’s well equipped Sierra money. One with a 5.3L V8 and superior power, towing and hauling figures (not to mention content) than its little brother. With an MSRP like that, buyers are going to really have to want it, and we’re sure that plenty of people out there will. That said, we hope that GMC (and Chevrolet) will offer the 2.8L D-Max engine in lesser contented midsize trucks as time passes.
There are some unique selling propositions that remain with the 2016 Canyon compared to the Sierra, regardless of the price. The most obvious of which is the size. Not everybody wants a big truck, nor can everybody store one in their garage (some of you condo owners, you know the struggle). Marginally better fuel economy is another. So, with 40-grand to spare, GMC presents two very strong options for different wants and needs, and it’s hard to go wrong with either one.
Sponsored Links
That’s brings up a good point. The 4.3L V6 EcoTec3 engine was designed to be a truck engine. Ford’s 3.5 and Dodge’s 3.6 are car engines, just like the 3.6 in the Colorado. Hat tip to GM for developing and putting a worthwhile base engine in their full size trucks and not just dropping a Fusion engine in it.
I can see why they did it for the Colorado; smaller truck that is more of a crossover competitor that a more traditional truck. And to compete even less with the bottom end Silverado lineup.
A twin turbo 4 cylinder can’t get far away from GM. 2.0TT with 320hp and 320lb-ft would make for an incredible gas engine in this truck.
You’re forgetting that in full size trucks, Ford’s little 3.5T “car engine” runs with GM’s 6.2 all day long, let’s not compare it to the AARP preferred 4.3.
Bugatti Veyron’s W16 is also “just” a car engine, so that must mean it wouldn’t be worthy of being a base engine in a pickup?
You missed the point entirely. And I wasn’t referring to the EcoBoost; the 3.5 naturally aspirated. Throw a turbo, or in the case you’re referring to, dual turbos, and you completely change the animal’s power band.
Funny you said that since the 2.7T beat the 3.5T. But then again the 6.2 gets better fuel economy than the 3.5T considering its “Ecoboost “
Competes with the 6.2? Lol wut. Well first off most Silverado and Sierras have the 5.3 which the ecoboost can’t compete with on any scale.
The 5.3 is an engine that regularly goes 500,000 miles without needing a rebuild and still doesn’t use any oil. The 3.5 needs a new cylinder head every 20,000 miles, a new turbo every 75,000 miles and is only designed to last to 150,000 miles.
If that’s competing with GM, then my fatass is faster than Usain Bolt.
Agree with your point about the 4.3NA engine with it’s excellent torque for a truck application but not sure I see a 2.0TT ever in a sport truck application.
With those numbers there wouldn’t enough of a power advantage over the LFX to justify the development costs and extra boosting of smaller displacement engines (ala Ecoboost ) does not yield significant fuel economy advantages.
Not disagreeing with you, you make a good point. But the benefit of a turbo and especially twin turbo is the low down torque that comes on strong and stays through the revs. It could offer 60-80lb-ft more torque than the LFX/LGX 3.6 V6 and peak torque at 2000rpm lower.
I am glad to see that I am not the only one who thinks that the 4.3l was the natural V6 choice for the midsized trucks. It’s a bit of a snoozer in the full sizes, but by all accounts, is a good engine. I just don’t know that GM is using it in the best way.
Considering the new 4.3 is spec’d pretty damn close to the old 4.8L V8 Vortec I wouldn’t call it a snoozer. It’s a solid base engine in full size form. Just to note, the old 4.3L Vortec only had 180-190HP.
Conclude Report about no economy ,bad performance Automotive engineer of 6 parts (The underground racing mechanicals) in all brands which mean brands failure in automobile thus forever.
1. Wider rear track than front track dimension chassis : easy wrecked chassis,the lowest traction,extreme tail flick,extreme slip,hardcore control in all speed and economy as 1-5 km/l,below 1 km/l.
2. turbocharger (1-4 turbo per engine) intercooler petrol engines : unstable acceleration,extreme wrecked engine parts,torque horsepower overload, and economy as 1-5 km/l,below 1 km/l.
3. without rear fog lamp : easy electronic parts wrecked,economy as 1-5 km/l,below 1 km/l.
4. CVT transmission : slow acceleration,economy as 1-5 km/l,below 1 km/l.
5. Wider front track than rear track in below 10 mm dimension chassis with RWD,AWD : medium traction,tail flick,easy slip and economy as 1-5 km/l,below 1 km/l.
6. Front track as same as rear track dimension chassis : medium traction,medium tail flick,easy slip,power slide,understeer and economy as 1-5 km/l,below 1 km/l.
If over 1 of 6 parts,automobiles of economy use 1-3 km/l,below 1 km/l.
Why they prefer 6 ones of bad quality uneconomy. They answer ” not your concert and no comment.”
?????????????
A lot of people are probably wondering WTF from that comment. But if you consider they are from Florida and a Trump supporter it all makes a lot more sense.
I would guess that this person is from Planet Remulak.
No not from Remulak. They are French!
I think GM is trying to hard for high profits on each vehicle. This could be a good little truck but $45k and its not even the top trim?
I dont think its performance is great enough for such a high price tag. I test drove the 3.6 colorado and silverado 5.3 the same day and I though the silverado was much better truck well worth the few mpg less if you didn’t mind the size. With the gas colorado still selling at msrp and the silverado selling at around 10k off I can see why GM dont expect to sell many diesel colorado pickups. the upfront cost of 45k really kills the fact it gets 30mpg.
Although the Colorado is smaller it is still very high off the ground and MORE difficult to get into than the Silverado.. You get up on the running board and have to duck cause the headroom is less but the distance from the ground is avg. 1.5″ further. That makes no sense at all. As for the diesel…. I don’t find that mileage good enough considering: 1. the price of the truck; and 2. The cost of diesel. This is not Europe.. Diesel is pricey and if you punch the numbers you would be far far better with a 4.3 gas engine. the mileage isn’t different enough to justify the higher fuel costs and the cost of the diesel option. AND now we see that the diesel may be a tad heavy for the front end of this truck. I waited 2 years for these “midsize” trucks and was very disappointed. Not enough versitility in the cab, narrow cab, not very good finish in the cab.. seats, dash etc. AND GM does waaay too much talk and no action. I have yet to see a LTZ Colorado in Palm Beach County FL.. They are selling stripped little trucks and their fav colors are red, black and silver. I found no selection.. Now I have an LTZ Silverado and it is fine. I don’t like the step up and it is a bit too big but at least I know that the $45k was well spent.
I drive a 1997 Chevy S10 with the “old” 4.3L engine and love it. As stated, it only has 180 HP, but 250 lb-ft @2800 RPM…I have had to haul a couple of full loads of concrete blocks from Home Depot about 40 miles from home.
I almost completely forgot I had a large heavy load in the bed of the truck. No perceived loss of power…Smooth sailing all the way. Great engine.
We really need to convince Reuss to put the latest 4.3 in the Colorado (and Canyon) and have new ZR2 and ZQ8 models.
What I’m really waiting for is someone to swap and LT1 into a Colorado and or Canyon.
While I am a fan of a Turbo 4 I would not hold my breath for one in a full size truck anytime soon until they drop the mass.
Second I would hedge on a TT 4. A single duel scroll can do the job now if you like but a 4 with that much boost would need premium and that would make it a tough sell.
Finally the 4.3 is the default to the guy who is wanting a cheap truck. Cut the fleet numbers and it is a slow selling model as most trucks have a V8 as they are just a smoother better engine. The 4.3 has come a long way but 90 degree v6 engine always have a little roughness about them even with balancing shafts a 60 degree does not have.
Being a full size market is mostly V8 at Chevy now they would be better served in getting an Engine that would drive excitement in the V6 like Ford has.
One mistake was to call the 4.3 a 4.3. While it has had many changes the name and size belays the truth just how much work it has received.
As it goes a 4 in a full size truck at this time would be difficult to sell. Hell they are just now learning how to sell a 4 in a Camaro which will be a great learning experience.
Just remember though, the longer a Diesel is ran in the better mileage it will get over the long term. They are much tighter initially compared to gas engines due to the high comp ratio. This Duramax engine will eat the gas ones for mileage, there is a very good reason 95% of these mid sized trucks don’t come with a gas engine option anymore in Australia!