As extensively covered by GM Authority, 2023 Chevy Colorado and 2023 GMC Canyon units didn’t start shipping to dealers until February 28th, 2023 because General Motors was waiting on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release fuel economy ratings for the all-new midsizers. Then, we finally got fuel efficiency figures, but only for the base turbocharged 2.7L I4 L2R gasoline engine. Now, GM Authority has exclusively learned the fuel economy ratings for 2023 Colorado units equipped with 4WD and the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine.
The EPA’s city/highway/combined fuel economy ratings for the 2023 Chevy Colorado equipped with 4WD and the L3B engine are 17/21/19 mpg.
| 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Turbo 2.7L I4 L2R | Turbo 2.7L I4 L2R | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | 2.5L I4 LCV | 2.5L I4 LCV | 3.6L V6 LGZ | 3.6L V6 LGZ | Turbo-diesel 2.8L I4 LWN | Turbo-diesel 2.8L I4 LWN |
| Transmission | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Drivetrain | 2WD | 4WD | 2WD | 4WD | 2WD | 4WD | 2WD | 4WD | 2WD | 4WD |
| City (mpg) | 20 | 19 | tbd | 17 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 20 | 19 |
| Highway (mpg) | 25 | 23 | tbd | 21 | 25 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 30 | 28 |
| Combined (mpg) | 22 | 21 | tbd | 19 | 22 | 21 | 21 | 19 | 23 | 22 |
It’s worth noting that the table above doesn’t include 2WD units equipped with the L3B, as those ratings have yet to be released. Additionally, now that these fuel economy ratings have been released, all 2023 Colorado 4WD units can now be shipped.
As a reminder, the 2023 Chevy Colorado is available with three output levels across two engine choices. The base turbocharged 2.7L I4 L2R is rated at 237 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque. Meanwhile, the 2.7L I4 L3B is available in Turbo Plus and Turbo High-Output configurations, where the engine makes 310 horsepower and 391 pound-feet of torque or 310 horsepower and 430 pound-feet of torque, respectively.
In regard to transmission options, all units are equipped with the revised GM eight-speed automatic transmission.
Under the body panels, the 2023 Chevy Colorado, as well as the 2023 GMC Canyon, rides on the updated 31XX-2 platform, while production is currently under way at the GM Wentzville plant in Missouri.
Subscribe to GM Authority for more Chevy Colorado news, Chevy news, and around-the-clock GM news coverage.
Comments
Yikes didn’t expect that big of a drop from the L2R. This gives it no gain at all in city and combined figures from last year’s V6 and a whole 3 MPG drop on the highway! This means Ford, Nissan, Toyota and even Ram have an edge on mileage figures with their full sized 4X4 pickups with V8’s and twin turbo V6’s. Disappointing
It’s extremely pathetic that a truck 40 years newer than the original with a 2.8 V6, can’t get better mileage than the the 83 model my dad had. I really like the new styling, sands not being able to get a long bed. But not sure on the interior, because I yet to set in one. I just hope they upgraded more than the dash, which is about all they did in the full-size units. Also would be nice to have more color choices on the interior.
GM has reverted back to the 70’s where they build what they want you to drive. At least then you could order a truck to your specs, now “this is what we make and you can drive these or lump it”. Good ol’ contrary Mary gotta make that money for the EV’s production that a small percentage of people will buy.
I had one of those first year 1982 s-10’s with the 2.8 v-6 and a 3-speed automatic transmission, no OD back then. Mine was the short bed Sport trim in yellow with black bottom stripe. It was my first new vehicle and it was a good looking truck.
My dad had 298,000 on his before he got rid of it, and he was very happy with it. His was extended cab 4 wheel drive and loaded for the year it was.
Nice, I traded mine in on a new Pontiac Fiero in 84. I about 50k miles on my s-10 in 2 years.
The 2.7t has not been impressive with fuel economy.
I test drove a Silverado Custom w/ the original L3B. Got 22mpg on my mixed Commute loop. I ended up with an LV3, because the other truck had a recall hold.
An L3B Silverado 4WD is rated 18/21/19. How is
an L3B Colorado 4WD rated 17/21/19. It’s smaller and lighter. Makes. No. Damn. Sense.
Probably has to do with Tires on them. Seems the Colorado and Canyons come with All Terrain tires instead of the all weather tires probably on the Silverado.
10 speed vs 8 speed?
Both 8-speeds
Final drive ratio is the same.
My question exactly. Only answer I have is that the EPA is pulling levers to keep economy down so as to sell EV’s, which they inflate the MPGe values of significantly. It’s similarly with the new 3.0 in the Silverado which should have had a 2-3 mpg increase but it actually saw a 2-3mpg decrease.
? Seems like quite a stretch.
Does it? This truck they rated at 21/17/19 is not the off road focused versions that GMA’s own Alex reported getting 27mpg on the highway. It should be getting more than that on the highway. Where’s the discrepancy?!? Somewhere there’s an issue. How does a smaller lighter vehicle get worse than the halftons? Only thing that adds up is regulators not happy that it’s not a BEV, as the half tons were certified in 2019. Lot has changed with the regulators since then.
Do you think the EPA regulates the fuel mileage? They typically use the data provided to them by the manufacturer. “Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 15%–20% of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.” Even if they said the mileage was less, the general public would spread word quickly that is better than reported.
EPA has the ultimate say on the rating, whether they like the OEM results or not. OEM’s are also incentivized highly to have these as high as possible, as that number is what they pay gas guzzler taxes on and carbon credits.
GM isn’t the only one to have this issue. Ford/ram/Toyota all are seemingly getting poor MPG returns on ICE only vehicles. Ford hasn’t introduced a new truck configuration recently and ram is keeping the grandfathered hemi, but If you’ve seen the new Corolla, I’m pretty sure my old Pontiac doesn’t match its fuel economy. Especially when I drove a rental one for work and got 55mpg. BTW, it’s rated at 35mpg combined. Something smells foul. That’s all I can say
I dunno about any of that because I don’t work for either and so I would just be speculating. I do know the quote I posted was straight from the EPA. I do know that we people would spread the real world mileage ratings, just like you just did by telling us about that 55mpg experience.
Copy & paste: “The EPA establishes the tests that yield the fuel economy figures, but for the most part it doesn’t conduct the tests itself. It doesn’t have the budget, equipment or manpower to test the hundreds of individual models with unique engine and transmission combinations that automakers produce each year.
Instead, the agency gives its test protocols to the auto companies and lets each test its own cars and trucks. It accepts as true the “EPA estimated” fuel-efficiency numbers each car company submits. To keep the industry honest, the agency runs scores of spot checks each year.
Okay, I don’t know what Pontiac you’re referring to, but I wouldn’t be caught driving a Corolla anywhere. The government and the greenies are pushing EV’S because it’s one they are LYING , that we can use to save the planet. Yes, we as people should do more to reduce waste and be more mindful of how we treat the planet. But the government is the POT calling the KETTLE black, because sourcing everything to make the components for DEF systems and making DEF , is more pollution than what they supposedly are trying to eliminate. It’s nothing more than a job creator, while keeping greenies happy, thinking they are doing a good thing for the environment. Earth will save itself from mankind, the question is, how few of us will be able to survive it, when that time comes!
According to the EPA website the silverado is rated at 17/20/18. So, the Colorado should be able to get 23 based on your experience.
With the lift, wider tires. I am not really surprised or concerned. I typically get 20-22 with my 22 V6. Just got back from a hwy drive getting 24mpg. These figures from EPA are really just a guide.
Looking forward to my new Denali in a couple weeks
Why have one engine with three tunes? Why have two of the three tunes so close? Is it really that hard to give all of the 390 lb-ft of torque guys another 40 lb-ft of torque like the 430 lb-ft of torque guys? The horsepower is the same on both tunes so it’s not like it’s going to be that much faster. As far as the base model tune goes, why not just drop the 2.0 in this thing as standard? And if you say for simplicity, then why not just make the 430 lb-ft of torque 2.7 standard across the board? I remember when the Chevrolet Cobalt SS Supercharged was replaced by the SS Turbocharged, GM offered stage kits for the car under warranty. Stock, the car was good for 260 hp, 260 lb-ft, with a stage 3 kit it was rated at 290 hp, 340 lb-ft. So, why are all of GM’s 2.0’s today so weak? Why is this 2.7 so weak in base tune? Why couldn’t they offer a 290 hp, 340 lb-ft 2.0 standard, with a 330 hp, 430 lb-ft 2.7 optional? And that fuel economy rating would probably shoot up with the 10 speed across the board as standard.
There are two engines. LR2 is its own engine variant of the L3B with parts removed to lower the HP/make it cheaper to manufacture. L3B in Turbo Plus and HO are the same exact engine, just two states of tune.
So, it’s still one engine with three tunes, it’s just that one of the three tunes just isn’t software alone? They are all 2.7 architecture dumb @$$, quit punching above your weight. After all, you are a gm tech. All of these engines are just variants of the original Ecotec engine which include; 2.0, 2.2, 2.4, and 2.7. Anything smaller was usually developed outside the U.S.A. and labeled Ecotec anyway just because anything I4 or less going forward was marketed Ecotec. They even call their Gen V truck V8s Ecotec3. See how I just wasted your with extra information the same way you did mine?
My friend, Nonspecific Motors , I hat to tell you , But you are the dumb $$ the LR2 is a 2.7 but build lighter duty parts, The LB3 is HD 2.7 that can withstand the High Output of the 430 Lb of TQ ! Now about 2.0,2.2,2.4, car engines and the 2.7 Truck engine Have nothing in common, But the number of cylinders 4 !
Yes, its a 2.7. No, its not the exact same engine.
2.7 isn’t even an Ecotec. Ecotec was the 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4. 2.7 Turbo is the new CSS (Cylinder Set Strategy) engine family. There is the 2.0 LSY in some of the crossovers, and then the 2.7 LR2 and L3B.
But, it still makes no sense to do it the way they are anyway. All said and done, the economy ratings are still pathetic, compared to what we could get out of my dad’s 83 model 40 years ago, with a truck that didn’t cost half as much.
17/24/19 combined was the EPA rating for your dad’s 83 with it’s whopping 110hp and 2wd. Power eats up fuel mileage, do you want 24 mpg on the highway at 110hp or do you want 25 mpg on the highway at 237hp?
I don’t remember what the ratings were for my dad’s V6 , yes it may have been a little wimpy on power, but being 40 years older, was far more efficient compared to any similarly equipped small truck today, regardless of the manufacturer, for less than half the cost of said new truck.
Also this truck was a 4 x 4 , not a 2 wheeler!
Well, that’s the EPA ratings for the 2wd the same year as your dad’s So, using the same rating as they use today, it wasn’t more efficient.
Also, all the technology is not about improving power, supposedly helping with pollution control, which also restricts efficiency. Therefore, just like the Def systems on diesels, all the smog prevention on gas vehicles . Is actually polluting more with making the products needed to put them on cars and trucks, while limiting their ability to operate at peak efficiency.
Because that’s another way to make more money, someone using the truck as a business doesn’t need the extra power. Rental companies are not going to buy the high performance models and that accounts for thousands of trucks.
So really GM should put the Duramax engine back in these trucks. I have a 2021 Silverado 1500 with Duramax. I get 25 mpg easy around town. And reached an impressive 34mpg on long commute. Albeit staying around 70mph. I understand diesel is 1$ more. But it’s worth it. Torque is amazing. Driven 5.3 liters all my life as well as the old 5.7. not going back to gas. If they get rid of Duramax I’m going electric ughg
Man that’s pretty rough .. the ranger about to come out as well .
So many things to like about this Colorado update, but also so many shortcomings; no long bed, cab configurations and poor mileage. I’m going to hang onto my Colorado long bed diesel as long as possible.
Yes, I had a crewcab longbed with the diesel and could get 30+ on the highway. The biggest thing holding it back was the transmission and the fact that some idiot ran a stop sign at a high rate of speed and plowed the hell out of it. It all worked out for the better though, got a 21 full-size GMC with 3.0 , same mileage, better ride, bigger truck. But still plenty of room for improvement to be done overall.
So….we’re taking a gamble on the 2.7L and the “upgraded” gen2 of the atrocious 8 speed transmission……and NOT getting better fuel economy? The 3.6 was tried & true and reliable. These aren’t even the numbers for the HO, so at this pace, it’s looking like the ZR2 will get 15/17 if we’re lucky. Not only that, all production of the ZR2 just got bumped out 2 months earlier this morning. So now, with June and July production dates, people will be lucky to get their trucks by July/August……..so what’s the point of ordering the 2023? This is a horrific fumble by GM. All of this build up talking about improved efficiency and stuff…..but in actuality, it’s worse. I’ve been a massive supporter of this new gen truck since the undercover photos leaked a couple of years ago and have an order in the books, but at this point, it’s just starting to not make sense to spend the money and wait.
Where did you hear the ZR2 was bumped?
I also just read the April start production on ZR2 has been pushed out 2 months i think it was on GMauthority post on facebook
GG, never thought the roll out would take more than a year! Have been anxiously waiting to check out the new truck and take a test drive. And, if satisfied, put in an order promptly for a ZR2. Can live with the not unexpected MPG numbers… but adding another 2 months wait? Sorry GM, may have to rethink my next 4×4 purchase now.
I can’t believe how bad some of you whine about a couple mpg.
It’s 2023, economy is in the gutter, and this is a mid-size pickup. People are going to care about MPG, especially when they lose a reliable engine for a questionable one that sounds like it’s dying every time you rev it.
How is it questionable? Serious question. It’s been proven for years in other GM products.
18 combined 4×4 tacoma, 19 combined 4×4 ranger, 19 combined 4×4 frontier…19 combined for 4×4 Colorado seems right in line with the industry and with a more powerful engine. I’m not sure why people were expecting a miracle on fuel mileage.
Yes, if you want good gas mileage don’t buy a pickup.
You you supposedly doing a complete refresh. It should be considerably better than your competitors in aspects, not just on power ratings!
Not at all surprising, less than same engine Silverado because it is heavier and less aerodynamic and has more aggressive tires. But I’ve seen this engine in the Silverado get great city economy for a truck. Unfortunately today you don’t buy a midsized truck fofor economy, you get it to offroad, give off an active lifestyle appearance, or for a slightly smaller size. I miss the days of the LUV S10. Minitrucks
What a disappointment of a truck. I’ve been keeping my on the compact truck market because my kid will be driving soon and getting him a small truck makes sense. Lots of concern about the 8-speed. Now a 4-cylinder engine that has an EPA rating on par with a Silverado with a 6.2 V8. I was rooting for this Colorado to be a winner, but it seems to be an epic failure. Can’t wait to see what the next Tacoma brings us.
For the record: I own a 2020 Silverado with the 6.2 and have seen as much as 24 mpg with the cruise control set 8mph above the posted speed limited while driving I-15 in Southern California from San Diego to Las Vegas.
18 combined, 17 city, 20 highway: 4×4 Silverado
19, 17, 21: 4×4 Colorado. I’m confused that people think the same engine would get substantially better fuel economy in a vehicle that weighs close to the same. If they had derated each version to maximize fuel economy people would then complain about the lack of power. Pick your poison and move on.
Colorado is 400-500lbs less than a crew cab 4×4 Silverado. My 2022 HO is 5049lbs. A Colorado is 4500-4700lbs.
Colorado crew cab 4×4 trail boss, 4,970
No. That is the ZR2 weight per the GM Order Guide.
Also, the same engine in a crew cab 4×4 Silverado was tested by TFL and it got 24 on the highway, even though it’s rated at 21. So, like the guy saying he gets 24 in his 6.2, even though it’s rated at 20… There is a good chance the Colorado will get better than the reported rating. 🙌
‘Mid size’ trucks, all of them, are substantially smaller and less capable than full size trucks. It really is surprising that they never have offered better fuel economy. Nobody escpects wonders, but it would make sense they would do at least a little better than the big ones. That leaves ease of maneuvering and parking as their only selling point.
Yes, compared to the trucks of today. Compared to 1/2 tons from 30 years ago, like the 1994 Silverado Ext cab Z71 with the 5.7 and a 7,500lb tow rating, they are on par. The Colorado Z71 has a 7,700 lb towing capacity and gets a better EPA fuel rating at 19 combined, vs the 1994 Silverado EPA rating of 13 combined. They are making them bigger and more powerful today than they used to.
I understand that they are bigger, more powerful, but even my 2000 half ton had comparable mileage and tow ratings for about 20 -25 grand less than a comparable truck today. The important thing is the technology is being over valued and most importantly, incomes are not keeping up with the rising prices.
Anyone wanting a PU truck, MPG is a non issue and is not a deal breaker. GM sells more truck based vehicles than anyone, HWY MPG on truck based vehicles have AFM or DFM. Cruising at 80 mph the engine is in four cylinder mode, at least on level ground or downhill.
Just because it’s a truck doesn’t mean it has to get poor mpg , especially being that trucks built 40 years ago , could get comparable or better mileage than their counterparts of today for less than half of the initial cost. Electronic gimmicks and a snazzy light show for a dash with a Ho-Hum interior don’t make for quality or value and yes, a truck 40 years newer should likely be twice as good as the old, while providing more than it does on all points.
They absolutely would get better mileage if they were still 150hp like they were back then. I would wager this 2.7 would get 30mpg at that hp, but then nobody would buy it and this thread would full of complaints about it’s lack of power. The 1980 C10 pickup got around 12mpg, fyi.
Trucks built 50 years ago got terrible mileage compared to today. My 2-WD 1970 F-100 with a 302 v-8, 4-speed manual trans, manual steering, and manual brakes got about 14 mpg combined. I think it was rated well below 300 hp. Fuel injection, computer control of the engines, and lots of aluminum and plastic are the reasons why today’s full size pickup do much better.
Yeah, they could also take down small trees with hardly a rub mark and cost less than a quarter of any comparable truck today. The extra cost associated with trucks of today and the extra weight mostly because of your goody , goody people thinking they can save all the people, reduce your pollution to save the planet. All the extra added electronics and pollution controls, actually end up being more pollutant than the pollution they are trying to reduce.
Yeah it was a puller when in granny gear, it would only go about 10 mph in 1st but would pull a house!
This could be the ZR2 with the high output engine
I really don’t GAS mine is in production . I don’t believe the EPA guesstement on these trucks I think they are pushing EV’s. I don’t GAS about the transmission worries the trucks come with warranty . I am eagerly waiting for my loaded z71 and with the option tuned HO . A couple MPG in either direction is not going to break or make me or you folks for that matter. If you don’t like it go by a Tacoma and send your cash to Japan.
They sell a lot of Tacomas that don’t have much in horse power. I think they should have focused getting more mpgs out of this motor. 430 ft lbs for torque but u can only tow 7,700 in a short box ! They should have kept the 6 cylinder, no turbo to worry about and the same fuel mpgs. People expect incremental improvements in mpg, and the government is demanding it but gm failed with these numbers
No, we expect incremental improvements in HP and torque. 19mpg combined is what we expect, unless it’s a 270ft/lb engine, that’s when we would expect better fuel mileage. 10 years ago the Colorado with the 5.3L had 320ft/lb torque and had a tow rating of 3,800 lbs and a fuel economy rating of 16mpg combined.
Thank you they put the mirrors back to where they belong
The diesel was the only thing that made this truck intriguing. Oh well. Moving on…