UPDATE: following the publication of this article, GM Authority learned that these fuel economy ratings were based on the 2023 Colorado’s base L2R Turbo 2.7L engine. Ratings for the L3B engine, in both Turbo Plus and Turbo High Output tunes, will be announced at a later date.
As GM Authority recently covered, no units of the all-new 2023 Chevy Colorado or 2023 GMC Canyon were shipped prior to February 28th, 2023 because GM was waiting on the EPA to finalize the pickup’s fuel economy ratings. Now, deliveries have officially begun, which means we finally have access to fuel economy figures for the 2023 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 | 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 | 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 |
| City (mpg) | 20 | 19 | 19 | 19 | 18 | 17 | 20 | 19 |
| Highway (mpg) | 25 | 23 | 25 | 24 | 25 | 24 | 30 | 28 |
| Combined (mpg) | 22 | 21 | 22 | 21 | 21 | 19 | 23 | 22 |
As seen in the table above, the 2023 Colorado in 2WD configuration posts a combined rating of 22 mpg. This is one mpg lower than the most fuel-efficient 2022 Colorado, which was a 2WD unit equipped with the 2.8L I4 LWN turbodiesel Duramax engine, and returned a combined 23 mpg.
As for 4WD models, the 2023 Colorado posts a combined 21 mpg. Again, this is one mpg worse than a comparable 2022 model, which returned a combined 22 mpg when equipped with the 2.8L Duramax turbodiesel engine.
In addition, the 2023 Chevy Colorado’s fuel economy ratings on par with those of the outgoing base 2.5L I4 LCV engine, and slightly better than those of the 3.6L V6 LGZ. And although the Duramax was more efficient than the new turbo 2.7L I4 L2R engine, the diesel was an option that cost between $3,720 and $5,210 depending on the chosen trim level.
It’s also worth noting that this slight drop in fuel economy ratings between the two generations is offset by increased power and torque figures for the current 2023 Colorado. In fact, the third-generation midsize pickup’s L3B produces more horsepower and torque than any engine in the prior second-generation truck.
| 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Turbo 2.7L I4 L2R | Turbo Plus 2.7L I4 L3B | Turbo High-Output 2.7L I4 L3B | 2.5L I4 LCV | 3.6L V6 LGZ | Turbo-diesel 2.8L I4 LWN |
| Transmission | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Power (hp @ rpm) | 237 @ 5,600 | 310 @ 5,600 | 310 @ 5,600 | 200 @ 6,300 | 308 @ 6,800 | 181 @ 3,400 |
| Torque (lb-ft @ rpm) | 260 @ 1,200 to 4,000 | 391 @ 2,000 | 430 @ 3,000 | 191 @ 4,400 | 275 @ 4,000 | 369 @ 2,000 |
As a reminder, the 2023 Chevy Colorado 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
City is decent. Highway is lower than expected, I would have thought 19/25.
EPA is terrible when it comes to ratings. My bet is it get significantly better than what is claimed. Especially in t to he last few years the EPA has gotten worse. The new LZ0 according to them gets worse than the LM2, despite many test drivers reporting better economy. The 2.7EB from ford, their efficiency holy grail originally posted 20/26/23, now even with the improved auto air dam it is rated lower at 19/24/22, not higher.
I’m pretty sure the epa is artificially deflating gas/diesel MPG numbers while at the same time artificially inflating MPGe to sell more EV’s and mess with the OEM’s fleet economy to increase fines to force them to sell more EV’s.I don’t believe this number for a bit. The Colorado diesel rating is grandfathered from the last administration as its configuration hadn’t changed. Even then you would
exceed it. I’ll wait for real life test results from independent testers who don’t have an administrative agenda
Ford had to down grade their economy numbers when they got caught cheating on their numbers. EPA doesn’t do the testing, the manufacturer tests according to EPA standards and ford was inflating the numbers for advertising and got caught by one of the automotive magazines and had to go back and retest with EPA watching. That was another Ford Better Idea.
But what about the new LZ0 duramax returning lower economy? Originally in 2015 when the current colorado came out, the 2.5L was also rated to 27mpg on the highway, and the 3.6 was rated to 26. Also, that’s more in line with what I saw when I rented one from enterprise. Someone is down rating the numbers because I have been easily beating them on newer vehicles for some time. It also doesn’t benefit OEM’s to be the source as they pay guzzler taxes on that number and it hurts their fleet averages.
The fuel economy ratings have been declining year after year since around 2015 on the Colorado/Silverado and the F-150/Ranger since they got caught inflating numbers with their so called Eco-boost engines which aren’t really that economical. GM’s 2.7 in 4X4 Silverado’s was hit the hardest with a drop to only 17/20/18 combined followed by the 5.3 when it switched over to the 10 speed and was downgraded to 15/19 in the volume 4WD models. There were slight gains on these for 2023 with the 2.7 going up to 18/21/19 and the 5.3 going to 16/20/18 but these numbers are all still below what was reported a few years back. The main issue seems to be how these trucks are ordered. More and more higher trims, off road versions, massive 22″ wheels and highly optioned trucks are being put out there so the entire lineup suffers.
As for the new Colorado I would expect the WT and LT with the base 237 HP 2.7 to easily beat that pathetic 23 highway rating with 4WD which is supported by the 26.5 obtained on the test from this very site. The higher output engine may do slightly better still with the extra torque as long as you’re cruising and not dipping into the turbo too often.
Could be a realigning of the CAFE scores with the trim mix – more top trim and and Trail Boss-style trims sold will drop the average by way of more weight and worse rolling resistance. Base WT with road tires will likely beat those ratings by 5-10%.
Whenever anyone writes “My bet” or “I’m pretty sure”, etc. it’s an obvious indicator that they don’t have a clue if what they are writing is factual.
I wouldn’t doubt what your saying, I averaged with a 2022 z71 crew cab with the 3.6 in it when I drove it from northern Indiana to central KY, I got at the highest 26.8 MPG for over half the trip, running between 70 and 75, terrain was mostly level to rolling no major hills/mountains, currently average between 20 and 22 mph mainly 2 lane country high type driving. I believe their cooking the books for this EV push.
Deep down, I don’t think GM cares about getting the best mpg or pushing the envelope to get better, especially with ICE. Gone are the days of light weighting vehicles. Plus decisions to appeal more to off-roading needs instead of daily driving dictates less aero and higher rolling resistance.
I’d make a bet CC extra short beds are the most aero config for EPA, CAFE footprint.
Wouldn’t necessarily disagree if done right, but my comment was more toward the increase in overall height, increased width, factory lifts, better approach angles, etc. None of those are going to help with aero.
People often buy to cover an infrequent use, otherwise the ‘room and features 1st’ crowd would turn it into an GC-Ridgeline blend. 1/2 tons are the comfortable daily. Off-road is the right choice for the mid size. It would be nice to see some effort in work or farm regular cabs configs too.
What an unintelligent post.
Aero has nothing to do with EPA/CAFE. The EPA test is done on a dynamometer at the EPA’s National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory (NVFEL) in Ann Arbor Michigan. While a manufacture may do it’s own testing it would also be done on a dynamometer in a laboratory.
Should’ve kept the baby Duramax. Routinely getting 30mpg on the freeway.
Depending on week and mix, we can get an avg of 26-28.
New Colorados looks great, but those numbers aren’t impressive.
Too heavy?
When jurisdictions like California are restricting the sales of ICE powered vehicles in 2035, makes sense for manufacturers to consolidate and reduce engine choices for any new vehicles. Those EV mandates have consequences.
And with a take rate of under 10%, death of the diesel was inevitable.
New truck is bigger and less aero. I’d imagine your Duramax would lose 1-2 in this.
Factoring in diesel fuel cost I don’t think you’re saving money.
Factor in diesel fuel cost? Well, consider towing, carrying stuff in the bed to maximum weight capacity, etc. the diesel will more than pay for itself even with the gas/diesel gallon price difference.
The new truck is more aerodynamic even though it’s bigger. All new vehicles have better drag coefficients than older vehicles. Often you don’t even really see how it’s better but they always are.
Yikes my 2010 GMC canyon gets better gas mileage and it’s an in-line five with 150,000 miles. I’m getting 21 in the city and 26 on the highway. Wow I just ordered a brand new one. I sure hope this thing is going to be as reliable as the one I I have now
I’m still amazed why GM built the simple 6-speed automatic next to the more modern 8-speed automatic! Why a 2.5L N/A when the 2.7L Turbo is also available with 210HP and 321HP!
Elimination of the 6-speed automatic, the 2.5L N/A and 3.6L N/A would save GM a lot of money and also benefit customers as prices could drop!
Variety of variants is probably still a luxury at GM that only GM can and wants to afford!
I would also like to note that the 2.8L turbo diesel is technically no longer the most modern! Why such a diesel when the 2.7L petrol engine also no longer nibbles petrol and the exhaust gases are cleaner, especially for California, since there are neither NOx nor NH3 toxins!
Well, you don’t have to understand everyone what GM does!
Sorry, but that’s kinda illogical!!!
The powertrain combinations on the right half of the chart are the 2022 model year options. Those are gone, replaced with 2 (the 2 high output tunes share the same RPO) versions of one engine, connected to 2 respective 8-speed transmissions.
They had to use up the inventory of 6 speeds.
Yes, more power on paper than my 2019 3.6L, but to get that power, you have to spin the turbocharger, and that eats gas. Darn it, I knew this would happen. I like the sound and feel of my V6, and 22-23 MPG with the way I drive is reasonable. Not impressed with these 2023 figures, but then again, as already said in this thread, gm is siphoning money out of their bedrock ICE vehicles and spending more on pie-in-sky EV, a dubious endeavor unproven, and so far unimpressive in its own right.
The EV’s are still a generation away. Until you see the power companies start upgrading the grid they’re not going to be feasible nationwide. They’ll only be in metropolitan areas, you can’t drive one across the country without adding many days to your trip hunting for recharging stations THAT WORK.
Look GM has to gain any MPG they can and with trucks it is not easy.
This is a clear gain in a day and age where even a part of a MPG is considered a gain.
They are not going to cut much weight as of the size, the crash standards and the expected content. Also building them out of lighter materials just add more to the price and can limit or damage profitability like at Ford.
As for Aero it is a truck so there are limits in what you can do and what people will accept
As for the Turbo aspect you will find if you have owned a recent Turbo that the low end torque makes for you to get to speed much faster and with less throttle and then off throttle vs the V6.
The 3.6 Really does not make a ton of power till 3000 RPM and generally you are using more throttle.
Also these numbers may be a little better in person too. My present truck betters the numbers and I do not drive it for MPG. Same on my 2.0 Turbo I had as it bettered by nearly 5 MPG. That was including the hard runs at full boost on the on ramps.
The Diesel died mostly with the ever increasing regulations they are facing.
As for the EV stuff it is time some of you come to grips with Reality.
#1 it is not a fad.
#2 The MFGs are all going to rely on it.
#3 they are not doing it because they want to. The cold hard face the number of states and countries are forcing that all light cars and trucks be zero emissions. Now how you get Zero emissions with a ICE or Hybrid is not real so EV is being forced on them as it is us.
GM is going to keep the ICE engines around as long as they can. I expect they will sell some in areas still legal and the HD trucks and larger will retain the new V8.
As for this truck it is an improvement MPG wise and it I expect based on the full size will be an improved drive over my 3.6. Not that the 3.6 is bad but that dead low end will be gone with the new engines flat torque curve
My 2014 Silverado RCSB with 6cylinder 2wd is the same or better than this. And a bigger bed.
The EPA ratings for your truck don’t agree, but those are also weighted towards the larger and heavier 2014 trims so you’ll beat that. I’m curious how the new Colorado feels size-wise to your gen crew cab – short box – those older Silverado’s seemed to hit the sweet spot on size before this current gen blew up to match the Tonka Fords.
The 2WD version isn’t bad at all considering this trucks weight and power. Pricing is another story. All the new trucks give you a dose of sticker shock but that’s the world we now live in.
It’s too bad GM decided to nix the baby Duramax. I notice that they do not compare the two larger 4 bangers in the mileage comparison. Some of the numbers don’t add up anyway. Duramax at 30 highway but 20 city? I have a full size 1500 diesel and I average 24-26 in town. I suspect that horsepower/torque in the two larger engines has to have a negative effect on the economy. Maybe someday, while I’m still alive, the people and government will come to their senses and re-introduce the diesels. I’ll keep my 1500 diesel until it dies, I guess. I get over 30 mpg on the highway.
Pretty underwhelming I think most were expecting 21-23 for 4×4 ..
well, that shot my theory of why they came out with the reduced power 2.7’s, I would have expected them to do better on MPG’s, not the same. Turns out to be just a “move up” incentive to add on options.
Actually don’t touch the lower powered 2.7. The Mid powered and top powered have extra parts to let the engine withstand all that torque. The engineers at GM have actually stated that the lower power 2.7 will not survive a higher power tune.
So your best engine is the turbo plus engine that has all the same parts as the top rated 2.7. But has the mid power tune.
Check out TFL Trucks channel on YouTube for the engineers show and tell on the engines
Somewhat disappointing MPG rating
Then this article says only 1 mpg less than the 2.8 turbo diesel combined.
Hyway rating at 25 for the 2.7. But 30 for the 2.8 diesel
I have the 2.8 diesel and its milage is amazing for a mid sized truck.
I was hoping the 2.7 would have been at least 28 mpg
Also how’s the MPg with a 5000lb load behind it
Try 7700 lbs which is what this thing is rated for. It won’t be good!
there will be a lot of truck owners not trading in their 3.6 v-6 now including me// /when was the last time a manufacturer came out with a new model less mpg..
The new model get better mpg in gas version! Very very few diesels are sold….I currently have a v6 2018 SLT canyon that I’m trading in on 2023 colorado Z71 …and the 2023 colorado has more horsepower and more torque and gets better MPG. I really don’t understand why everyone is complaining about MPG.
“As seen in the table above, the 2023 Colorado in 2WD configuration posts a combined rating of 22 mpg. This is one mpg lower than the most fuel-efficient 2022 Colorado, which was a 2WD unit equipped with the 2.8L I4 LWN turbodiesel Duramax engine, and returned a combined 23 mpg.”
Bizarrely, the person doesn’t write that the mpg difference between the gas and previous diesel engine will drastically change once someone starts towing trailers, etc. or the bed of the truck is filled to the maximum weight capacity.
The reliability of all the pollution BS on the 2.8 diesel has been an issue over the short life of the diesel.
Cheap sensors running at the upper limit of their max temperature ect is a major concern.
But these could have been addressed by GM.
Personally I believe I would move up to the new 3.0 LZO Duramax and give up on the mid sized turbo gas engine. Why is the 5.3 liter in a full sized truck getting 1 mpg less than the 2.7?
It seems 4 cyl gas engines just don’t get good fuel milage and get terrible fuel milage when put under a load!
After owning a 2.8 diesel and how easy it is on fuel. And I mean absolutely amazing fuel milage. Along with the crazy loads I have pulled with this truck, it’s been nothing but impressive . 30mpg is easily obtained with the 2.8, many people getting 32+
The majority of people with the 2.8 diesel easily exceed the EPA MPG rating.
Big mistake on GMs part to discontinue the little diesel. It should have been hardened to make it more reliable like they did with the 3.0 litre.
And don’t say diesel is dirty because it’s cleaner than gas.
I’m betting it would be possible to fit the 3.0 LZO in the Colorado as they designed it to be short enough to fit in the Silverado which uses engines that are 4 cylinders in length, just like the Colorado. Now that would be a premium powertrain.
I wouldn’t doubt what your saying, I averaged with a 2022 z71 crew cab with the 3.6 in it when I drove it from northern Indiana to central KY, I got at the highest 26.8 MPG for over half the trip, running between 70 and 75, terrain was mostly level to rolling no major hills/mountains, currently average between 20 and 22 mph mainly 2 lane country high type driving. I believe their cooking the books for this EV push.
Has GM or the EPA dropped the ball in getting us the numbers for 2.7+ and the 2.7H.O? It seems that these trucks should be on lots by now since they started rolling off the line 2 months ago. What is going on? The fuel efficiency numbers should be better for both of these engines since the engine is not working as hard to push the truck.