GM debuted the 2023 Chevy Colorado last July, unveiling a brand-new third generation compete with a restyled exterior, an overhauled cabin, an updated model lineup, and a new powertrain. Notably, the EPA has yet to release the official 2023 Chevy Colorado fuel economy estimates, even though the truck is now officially in production. That said, GM Authority recently got a chance to get behind the wheel of the new 2023 Chevy Colorado, recording some real-world fuel economy numbers in the process.
During a recent media drive, GM Authority Executive Editor Alex Luft pulled some interesting fuel economy numbers from the 2023 Chevy Colorado trip computer. The model in question was a 2023 Chevy Colorado Trail Boss, which is equipped with four-wheel drive as standard, as well as the mid-range 2.7L Turbo Plus engine configuration, rated at 310 horsepower and 391 pound-feet of torque. This particular Trail Boss was not equipped with the optional 2.7L Turbo High-Output engine, which is rated at 310 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque and is equipped as standard on ZR2 models.
Interestingly, GM Authority recorded an average of 26.5 mpg while driving a short 6.6-mile open road trip at a steady 65 to 70 mph. The onboard computer also recorded the truck’s average fuel economy since it left the factory as “Trip B,” which was never reset and showed 15 mpg. The latter figure includes all the time that the truck was left idling and driven during its trek to San Diego for the media event, and also included some off-road driving by all the journalists who were assigned the vehicle.
Of course, it bears mentioning that these numbers are in no way scientific, nor do they represent any kind of rigorous calculation. The open road average was also on a very short commute. Nevertheless, the two averages (26.5 mpg, 15 mpg) could very well represent some of the highs and lows for the new 2023 Chevy Colorado in terms of fuel economy.
| 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Silverado 1500 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | 2.5L I4 LCV | 3.6L V6 LGZ | Turbo-diesel 2.8L I4 LWN | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B |
| Transmission | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic |
| Drivetrain | 4WD | 4WD | 4WD | 4WD | 4WD |
| Power (hp @ rpm) | 310 @ 5,600 | 200 @ 6,300 | 308 @ 6,800 | 181 @ 3,400 | 310 @ 5,600 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 391 @ 2,000 | 191 @ 4,400 | 275 @ 4,000 | 369 @ 2,000 | 430 @ 3,000 |
| City (mpg) | TBD | 19 | 17 | 19 | 18 |
| Highway (mpg) | TBD | 24 | 24 | 28 | 21 |
| Combined (mpg) | TBD | 21 | 19 | 22 | 19 |
As a reminder, the 2023 Chevy Colorado also offers the base 2.7L Turbo engine, which gets its own L2R RPO code and produces 237 horsepower and 259 pound-feet of torque. All three engines connect to the second-gen GM 8-speed automatic transmission. Under the skin, the pickup rides on the updated 31XX-2 platform, while production is underway now at the GM Wentzville plant in Missouri.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Colorado news, Chevy news, GM technology news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Testdriventv youtube channel reported getting 15.8 mpg in mixed driving at the california launch.
Seems this was the same test drive TFL truck was at in California. They took extensive video of the trail. If that’s the case, 15mpg with mixed off road driving is insane. 26mpg on a lifted truck with off-road tires puts the 2.7 in range of the 2.8 duramax, maybe in the LT trim able to exceed it.
Yep, same event that the TFL and TruckKing were at.
My 2017 Chevy Colorado with the 2.8L Duramax diesel engine averages 31 mpg on the highway.
With a 2″lift, widebody and AT tires? I think that 31 is very possible in an LT 4×4 trim, possibly more in 2wd with the base trim.
I have a 2020 ZR2 diesel with 32″s and with mixed city I always average 20-21mpg per tank and mid 20’s on the highway if I do the speed limit (80mph – rare). On road trips back east with lower speed limits and no mountains I can get close to 30mpg highway only. I did average 37.7 for a 50 mile stretch from Wyoming to Nebraska as it was all downhill and I was doing the 75MPH speed limit. My feeling is the 2.7 will be a little less fuel efficient than the diesel in town and off road, but superior to the V6.
But, the price of a gallon of diesel has gone crazy so better MPG doesn’t mean lower cost per mile driven. Diesel was two dollars a gallon more then gasoline for a while.
when is the EPA fueleconomy.gov web site going to have 2023 Colorado ratings? Also, the EPA ratings should be on the window stickers of all new trucks sold.
When the government decides to stop working from home. Might be 2 years. Still waiting on my 2021 tax return 🙄 besides. I’d trust real world tests from web content providers over the EPA. Seems like their trying to intentionally downrate trucks and SUV’s and push BEV sales. I just want to know how much I’ll spend on my mileage.
The reason to use EPA fuel economy ratings is they are STANDARD. The test is done on a dynamometer in a lab. So, every vehicle under a certain weight is tested and them you can compare. Is it perfect? NO. The EPA test was not designed to give fuel economy ratings it is an emissions test. In the 1970s the gasoline price skyrocketed and people wanted to save money and needed a was to rate cars that used less gas. Someone figured that what comes out of the tailpipe could be used to figure the gasoline used. But, “Your milage may very”. Now if you want high mileage, get a diesel. But, the price of a gallon of diesel has gone crazy so better MPG doesn’t mean lower cost per mile driven.
Real world testing? Do they drive the same road? Is the temperature the same? Is the gasoline different? Real world is full of variables.
Yes, the government wants you to drive electric cars and trucks. You might want to think keeping a truck for twenty to thirty years. Havana trucks. A Ford F150 with an aluminum body that will not rust. Maybe the hybrid version for better MPG but that is only a crew cab and the battery pack might not last that long.
These are sone of the worst mpg conditions you could have wit lots of idle time, 0-60 and slow trail driving that like leaving an idle in the drive.
The number when release will be as goo or better than the last truck.
“average of 26.5 mpg while driving a short 6.6-mile open road trip at a steady 65 to 70 mph.”
That looks more like the best possible condition to me.
You do know he was talking about the acceleration tests, idling while showing off the features and off roading of the remaining miles right??? My farm truck averages 7-8 mpg when it’s running around in the flat field.
You have to keep in mind also the 15mpg was with journalists hot rodding it to test power out put. I would say normal driving will probably be closer to 18 city, 26 highway, 20 overall. Also this was using the onboard computer that is programmed by a GM employee. We all know how Ford over estimated fuel economy ratings and got caught by a test magazine and the EPA made Ford re-do the numbers.
GM isn’t Ford. From my experience with my current GM vehicle, GM’s computer calculated MPG is pretty darn accurate. Does the computer match my hand calculations, no. But the computer is always consistently .1 to .2 mpg less than my hand calculated mpg, i.e. always close, never better than actual.
After the first 18 months of ownership, doing hand calculations at every fill up, and finding the computer reliably accurate, I quit doing hand calculations at every fill up. I just do a random check once every few months to make sure the computer continues to be accurate.
Using the same methodology, every GM vehicle I have owned in the past 10 years (4) have overstated onboard MPG calculations by 9.5 t0 11%.
I do MPG calcs for every new vehicle I purchase. I have had vehicles where the computer was never accurate, always way over stating the MPG. For these, I do my own math and ignore the computer. But, in recent history, my current and previous last 2 GM vehicles, the computer has been spot on.
As I originally stated, this is my personal experience. My personal experience cannot be applied to every GM vehicle.
I have currently 3 GM vehicles , a 2011 Cruze LTZ RS, a 2016 Colarado Z71, 4WD crew cab and a 2020 Nox AWD 2.0l . The computer calculations are very accurate and most times are less than the actual fill up method of calculating mileage.
I saw a number of those mileage readings on the introductions , and most of that mileage would be the worst the truck would give. All of the editors I saw in video were leaving the trucks idle extended periods of time and were constantly flooring it to do 0-60 and passing times etc.
Take any other full size truck on that route and drive it the same, or Ford Ranger , Toyota etc and they would never get close to what these trucks are delivering
That is about what I get with my 2015 V-6 4WD. Trip 2 reads 21.4mpg over the last 43,000 miles. But our speed limit is mostly 55-65mph.
I’ve got a 2022 Colorado with the 3.6 and I’m averaging 21 mpg all round. On a 2 Lane driving 60-65 I’ll get around 24-25. I have yet to get below 19 with short trips and city driving.
Hopefully one of the many journalists that was at the event managed to get trip econ on the lengthy ride from SD to the OR location.
I still think it’s interesting that the L3B is rated for peak torque at much higher rpm in the Colorado than in the Silverado. I’m sure that in the Colorado, it can run in the low-lift mode and even 2cyl mode much more than in the Silverado.
I don’t think there is a difference between the 2.7 in the Silverado and the Colorado. The older 2.7 had a lower RPM peak torque, but the newer 2022 2.7 with the higher torque output has a higher rpm number for peak torque. It’s not a bad thing…still makes just as much torque as the old motor at the lower rpm…at least from what I can recall.
15mpg isn’t much better than what my 2019 Silverado 2500hd 4wd gets or what the v6 got.
Hopefully GM will offer a V6 starting in 2024. They need other options besides a 4 cylinder.
With the 4 cylinder at over 300hp, they really don’t need a V6, and you’re probably not going to see one.
Dont need as long as you dont expect engine to last past 60 or 70k….lol
My wife has a 2.0L turbo in her Wrangler (270hp) with 85k on it already and zero issues… lol.
But go ahead and continue living in the past. You’re not alone there.
When will these be available at dealerships?
I’m going to predict mileage ratings of the 2023 Colorado at 19/23 with 4X4 and 20/24 with RWD
What do we tell the Ford guys all the time :”You can have Eco, or you can have Boost, but you can’t have both” LOL
We know these downsized boosted engines are just about CAFE testing. Smaller engines do well under laboratory emissions tests. The Ford guys found out the real world is different.
I think this engine will only exceed the 3.6 by a few MPG.
You’re right about the emissions tests. But I have my doubts this engine will exceed the MPG of the V6. GM needs a hybrid version of the 2.7, it’s the only way I see it getting good real world fuel economy. They would be foolish not to offer that.
i am amazed how theese people that do mileage tests can never do them under the normal conditions???? why can you not include a normal driving test on the highway 20 miles plus at 55MPH AND TELL US WHAT THE MILEAGE IS… iam more concerned about MPG. AT 55 THAN I AM AT 70MPH… I agree with ALBERT that this engine will not exceed the mpg of the v6 … but who knows ???? which i mentioed before on this site… as i noted before on this site full gm pickup comparing the 5.3 and 2.7 last time i checked were almost identical on highway ratings …. it would be nice to hear from some fullsize gm owners with 2.7 their thoughts
That’s very strange to care about the efficiency at 55mph on the highway. Unless by “highway” you are referring to a side road / surface road, whatever. I’ve always thought EPA highway was pretty accurate on an ICE, and for an EV I would like to see the range at 75mph, which is more realistic and closer to what they test highway mpg on a gas vehicle.
HP HP HP is a SAUCE. That’s what the V6 will get when you put the torquier, heavier 23 against the torque lackluster V6. Mark my words when it hits 2nd gear at 3k rpm’s with 430 ft spooled up the only problem will be keeping it straight.
That 15mpg is terrible!!! I believe the mpg combined should be around 22mpg