The all-new third-generation 2023 Chevy Colorado got its big debut last July, with General Motors pulling the sheets on an updated model line, new exterior styling, an overhauled cabin, and a new powertrain. As before, the third-gen pickup is once again available in the Colorado ZR2 off-road trim level, which is specifically geared for enthusiasts with a ton of trail-ready equipment. Now, GM Authority is revealing fuel economy ratings for the 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2.
According to GM Authority sources, the 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2 returns 16 mpg in the city, 16 mpg on the highway, and (obviously) 16 mpg combined. These figures make the 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2 the least-efficient trim level in the third-gen lineup.
| 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado | 2023 Chevy Colorado With Mud Terrain Tires | 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2 | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado ZR2 | 2022 Chevy Colorado | 2022 Chevy Colorado ZR2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Turbo 2.7L I4 L2R | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | Turbo 2.7L I4 L3B | 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 | 8-speed automatic | 8-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic | 6-speed automatic |
| Drivetrain | 2WD/4WD | 2WD/4WD | 4WD | 4WD | 2WD/4WD | 2WD/4WD | 4WD | 2WD/4WD | 4WD |
| City (mpg) | 20/19 | 18/17 | 17 | 16 | 19/19 | 18/17 | 16 | 20/19 | 18 |
| Highway (mpg) | 25/23 | 23/21 | 19 | 16 | 25/24 | 25/24 | 18 | 30/28 | 22 |
| Combined (mpg) | 22/21 | 20/19 | 18 | 16 | 22/21 | 21/19 | 17 | 23/22 | 19 |
As a reminder, the 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2 is equipped as standard with the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L3B gasoline engine, specifically the Turbo High-Output variant, which is rated at 310 horsepower at 5,600 rpm and 430 pound-feet of torque at 3,000 rpm. Elsewhere in the lineup, the 2023 Chevy Colorado offers the 2.7L Turbo Plus variant of the L3B, which is rated at 310 horsepower and 391 pound-feet of torque, while the 2023 Chevy Colorado’s base powerplant is the turbocharged 2.7L I4 L2R gasoline engine, rated at 237 horsepower and 260 pound-feet of torque. The second-generation GM 8-speed automatic transmission is offered as the only transmission option across the lineup.
In addition to packing the most powerful engine, the 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2 is also notable for its 17-inch wheels and LT285/70R17 33-inch OD MT tires, while the ZR2 Off-Road Package includes a 3-inch factory-installed lift with high-performance DSSV suspension and a taller, wider stance. Put it all together with a higher overall weight (4,940 pounds versus 4,640 pounds for Trail Boss and Z71 trims), and it’s no wonder why the 2023 Chevy Colorado ZR2 has the lowest fuel economy of the bunch.
Under the body panels, the 2023 Chevy Colorado rides on the updated GM 31XX-2 platform. Vehicle production takes place 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
its about time.!!
I think offering the Duramax diesel as an option will be good for the ZR2 and might provide better fuel economy ratings. Who knows, the diesel may have a higher take rate than the gas version.
With these gas sucking ratings offering the diesel would have been a logical choice for those that don’t want 1970’s era fuel economy. A hybrid would have also been a good idea here if they were doing such things.
@Joe Yoman: who do you think this is? Toyota?
Well? Guess it has more HP than my 20 ZR2 but, mine was rated 18MPG Highway and I can get 20 if driven right. Is this really progress?
@ Eric B, I agree completely! My 2019 routinely gets 20-21mpg highway at 70 mph, and better if you drive slower!
There is a ZR2 on fuelly I’ve been following. The EPA is wrong. Looks like the ZR2 gets 18-19combined and 14 off road from a real world standpoint and not exactly broke in yet. I am convinced at this point GM asked the EPA to nerf the ratings for this year so they can start selling them ASAP and will revise next year. I wonder how long it will take Toyota to get the new taco passed regulations.
Yes, HP/Torque cut into fuel economy. If they reduced the HP to get better fuel mileage than that old wheezy 6, then people would complain about the lack of HP.
Well, hell… If I had known the mileage was going to suck that bad with the ZR2, I would’ve just stuck with the 99 Ranger I’ve got that gets about 16mpg. I wasn’t expecting a significant improvement over what my Ranger gets when I ordered my ZR2 (which still hasn’t been built yet and won’t be built until the end of this month), I was expecting a bit better than 16mpg.
Diesel costs significantly more than gasoline. The MPG rating is not as good as it looks when you are filling the tank with more expensive fuel. Example: 20 MPG Diesel for 10k miles @ $4.00 per gallon is equal is annual cost of driving as compared to 15 MPG Gasoline for 10k miles @ $3.00 per gallon. I realize the two fuel sources are not always offset by $1. Regardless, the fuel savings is non-existent.
If they would offer the 3L diesel I would replace my 2020 ZR2 Duramax, but I don’t think that’s going to happen. I get 20-21 mpg in mixed city driving with 33’s and a little better on the hwy depending on how fast I drive. 16mpg is similar to what I got with my 2007 HUMMER X.
Agreed. i have a 2020 diesel Zr2, i love the thin. Why step back?
So if it didn’t have a higher take rate in the prior version, why would it now? The diesel is a dog, I have the v6. Another of the seemingly endless comments on this site from people who say that “maybe” if GM did it different it would be better. Besides saying “who knows” what would make you think the diesel, which failed in the prior model, would do better against the higher (than v6 and diesel) torque of the new motor?
That is way worse than I expected. They probably should have used the 10Speed and maybe gotten 1-2 mpg better across the line up. I am guessing the AEV with 35s will be at 13 or 14mpg. My 2014 Sierra 6.2 crew cab with 4in lift and 35 in tires gets 18-19 on the highway.
The 10 speed has not resulted in better mileage. Perhaps it would be that fraction of a mpg that lets them bump up 1.
I think they should design a 20 spd. transmission to offset the horrible MPG.
It’s time GM eliminate gas guzzlers. Someone has to “be the adult in the room”…
Well, then good news, the Colorado ZR2 should get 18-19 on the highway as well, since that ’14 was rated at 17mpg combined.
No it’s not worse than expected. Where did you get your “expectations” from? Look at the new Toyota with it’s chin spoiler. Do you see anything like that on the Colorado? I don’t. These #’s are exactly what was “expected”.
Amazing how the smaller truck, Colorado, gets worse mpg than the larger Silverado with the same engine, progress???
Explain to us your math on that. Because last I checked when the numbers are the same that isn’t worse mpg. Both get 20/19 2wd/4wd combined. That is a little disappointing but the truck is only a 1/4 ton less weight and it is geared more towards off road so it sits higher in the air for all its suspension and the body isn’t as streamlined. So makes sense unfortunately. It isn’t worse though.
Yes. It seems some here don’t understand physics.
For starters, truck aerodynamics have improved significantly, and they are not meant to be like cars, because they are meant to be for working. The Canyon/ Colorado twins would be far better off mileage and power, with the 3.0 diesel, than gas 4 banger. It’s been criticized for its mileage ever since it was introduced in the full-size trucks, why did HM think it would be different for the midsized trucks. Foolish marketing move on GM’s part as far as I am concerned. All the while kissing the backside of our current administration.
.
“because they are meant to be for working.”??? What does even mean? Oh, if you’re not “working” then you shouldn’t have a truck? Why don’t you do your own research and compare Cd figures? The reason Cd is better is partly due to things like the chin on the toyota – which many people will remove. Didn’t some of the twins have that too. And people complained and removed it. A Toyota engineer even said how “easy” it is to remove it at the introduction in Hawaii. How much more does the 3.0 weight? 467 lbs. total. can’t find the turbo 4 weight, lets at least 150 lbs. more. I think GM knows more about marketing than you. And ” All the while kissing the backside of our current administration.”? OHHH… you have a different agenda. Blame the guberment. Yes many believe FJB and that they should be able to roll coal….. You maybe? You make as much sense as MTG asking for decorum….
Again, you can have more power or better MPG. Which do you want? 420 ft.lbs blows away the v6 it replaces. And is more than the V8. Oh and the obvious… Will the 3.0 fit? I think not. With the price differential between diesel and gas it will vary as to which engine is more expensive to run. And I thought diesel guys liked torque… It’s like people asking for station wagons. When they were available they didn’t sell. If the diesel had sold in the prior version you would be seeing it in the new one. It didn’t sell so they are making it.
You don’t have to roll coal, just because you have diesel. The ones you see doing so, are those have had tuning kits put on and deleted their def units. Which actually a government program, that promotes polluting more, to make all the components needed to use it, while creating a few jobs. But hey, they tell people like yourself, that the air is cleaner because of it!
Well, you are obviously a greenie but and one of the main reasons diesel is more expensive, is because there’s more than double the tax. Plus world governments came with a great plan to create to create a few jobs, while convincing greenies that it’s better for the environment, all while polluting more, in order for diesel’s to use DEF.
It’s not progress. There is no excuse for the 2023 Colorado ZR2 to get worse MPG than the 2022 Colorado ZR2.
yes there is. It has SIGNIFICANTLY higher tq/hp than any previous ZR2 since 2017. I personally am looking at a ZR2 as a ‘fun vehicle’ for offroading and enjoying its power when driving in general. I am a car enthusiast so I will gladly take power/performance over fuel economy. I measure my driving experience in smiles per mile not mpg ;). People who are crying about economy have different priorities IMO.
If you want economy there are other options within the Colorado lineup.
FWIW I have had a 2018 ZR2 diesel bone stock. My overall average (only put about 16,000 miles on it) has been between 23-24mpg (much higher than what this table above claims).
What Off-road application needs more HP? Isn’t the most important part the suspension? How does more HP help?
I said I would enjoy the extra power ‘in general’. IE road driving, daily driving, road tripping, etc.
When offroading (except for baha style) you don’t need the extra power – agreed.
Well, the ’22 zr2 has a combined 17mpg, and a heck of a lot less power. Maybe you can take it to a mechanic and have them tune it down to the ’22 hp rating so you can get better fuel mileage.
The market share will not change with the new trucks, I’d wager if pricing doesn’t mess it up the Toyota will grab more of it. They had the worst truck and the most market share and now they arguably have the best, with Colorado in a relatively close 2nd.
toyota was the biggest selling because of the 15 year old design was known not to fail. Many fan boys will say the Yota was “better”. It wasn’t design wise. It was slower, you sit on the floor, etc. But it’s dependability was sound. And now it may be better than the rest. The Ford also is good. Will the new Taco be as dependable as before? Yet to be seen.
Midsize truck with full size truck MPG, even with the auto start/stop it doesn’t even help.. This is crazy!
16/18???? Are you kidding? A 4 cylinder? That’s freaking horrible!
They should crank it down to 220hp and get better mileage so you can be happy.
I have a 2015 Colorado. These ratings are not much different than what I get with it. My concern is not that; my concern is that I have had a 2023 ordered for some time now. It has been built, I have the VIN number but cannot seem to get GM to ship ii! I am so disappointed in General Motors. Probably will not buy another one!
So because you pre-ordered a fresh new design and it is taking a little longer in these new times you are going to complain and not buy another? It isn’t GM’s fault. They want you to have the truck. If you have looked at any news articles transportation is struggling bad, they got help up with the EPA (probably staffing) and are impacted by employee shortages in many areas and shuttered suppliers. All manufacturers are having this problem. All lots from Ford to Dodge to Toyota have thin lots with not many vehicles. But yeah, go blame GM because you had to be the guy with the newest truck no one has yet. You knew the risks, you are probably going to whine when there are some teething issues with a first year new build truck…
Dear Mr. common sense LESS because that’s pretty much what you are you are an apologist for GM. Please understand these people put in an order for their vehicle. If there are issues with the vehicle or problems with manufacturing or problems at the factory then you know what GM’s should communicate with their customers whatever happened to customer service are you going to tell me now because of Covid or because of these changing times the consumer isn’t worthy enough to be able to get communication so they know what’s going on with their vehicles and as far as somebody wanting to buy a new vehicle and you’re telling me, they should expect delays. No, not true I’ve purchased vehicles from other manufactures never had that problem GM has definitely let down their consumers I gave up I canceled my order. I am not gonna be held hostage by any manufacture so I give these people credit so all of you that are waiting patiently and of course you may be frustrated I feel for you and I have a lot of respect for you.
@Rob: I agree with you but your wasting your time/breath when it comes to Commonsense. Just saying.
GMs hands are tied. They have little or no control pulling drivers and CARRIERS
out of their arses. These are the times in which we live. The “new normal” is
pretty damn frustrating to say the least.
It’s going to take some time to fix the hail damage.
Just did close to 800 miles with a 2000 lb low pro dump trailer. 16 Z71 4×4 Duramax no air dam, leveling kit 265 tires. Close to 75 mph just about 22 mpg, 29/30 daily commute.
Look I love the Colorado steering feel, ride. Don’t think when it’s time I’ll be saying wish I had a little more room in the cab or bed anymore. What ever number it is 10 or 20% less mpgs from a 22 is unacceptable.
No bed, engine options should be unacceptable. GM’s got you drinking the koolaid.
Great news then, the ’22 ZR2 was 17mpg combined, so it’s a 6% difference. But, clearly the 16/16/16 number is just a placeholder to get them EPA approved and on the road.
That’s awful.. mpg .. Swing and miss . Cant even. Get 20!? Come on .
Gotta be an error, no way it is 16 on highway and city. I would guess 18 on hwy more accurate.
Still horrendous.
18-20 should of been the standard..
He said 18 mpg, same as you said should be standard.
At least youll look cool at the pump i guess?
This doesn’t seem like official EPA numbers. From “sources”
Here is a reality check here for this deal.
#1 GM no longer has a small 4 diesel to offer an the Inline six will not fit. To make a new diesel would be expensive and limited time wise as emissions are killing the diesel.
#2 this truck is about 500 pounds plus heavier as it has more content.
#3 The off road version of most trucks and jeeps are very dirty aero wise. The tires and cut away bumpers alone are killers.
#4 Yes it is a 4 but it has as much or more power and torque than most larger engines. It makes more power per liter and that makes for better emission numbers. They have to also get better emissions not just MPG.
This is about what the V6 did with less weight and less torque.
This is a damn good truck and if the MPG is that important then you are not into an off road truck. Buy a Prius and live life on the pavement.
Bad excuse . You gotta maintain at least previous gen Mpg.. Suppose be going forward not backwards . The rest of your statement is fluff. Don’t excuse regression
The combined MPG of the ’22 zr2 was 17 combined. This new one will get better than 16. It’s obviously a placeholder number to get them EPA approved an on the road. It’s 16/16/16…that’s not accurate numbers.
It will balance out the same and no excuse. Physic are what they are larger and heavier and more torque and maintaining is a good accomplishment.
If you want more MPG get a Spark.
Note regression just reality start playing with it. It would do you some good.
The 4 banger diesel never reached its potential, mainly because it was never backed by the right tranny , nor did GM put their best foot forward!
You also must be someone working for the government, because you sound like you would be more than happy to kill diesel engines altogether. Go buy the new hummer, I am sure Biden will be happy to kiss your backside for buying something that is actually worse for the environment than any diesel.
So it’s the guberment… got it. I wonder if you run red diesel… you know so the guberment doesn’t get your tax money. Maybe diesel should be killed, you can buy a used one.
Our LT with the turbo plus is getting 17.8 city with only 300 mi on the odo. One more mpg would be fine when broken in and would only be one mpg behind the old 2.5 four on the 2016.
My ’23 full size High Country with the 3.0 Duramax is getting 23 combined and 26 on trips. It weighs around a thousand pounds more than the Colorado, and I’m pretty sure the ride is much better. Just passed 4500 miles, and I’m curious how much better the mileage will be when the engine breaks in fully. The Colorado mileage is a bad joke.
Yeah, diesels get better fuel mileage than gas…. And your truck is 200 lbs heavier.
How does 1000 lbs more make the ride better? That’s like saying a man with a 50 lbs beer gut is more athletic. All that extra weight on the nose makes ride and handling worse. Again, physics. “I’m pretty sure the ride is much better”… how often have you driven what you are comparing it to? Your statement makes no sense.
I suspect this article has typos because 16/16/16 is simply impossible. Plus the Chevy website officially lists the ZR2 MPG at 17/19/18.
It’s still a sad bunch of numbers, no matter what a number of these guys are saying. Yes the 4 has numbers comparable to the V6 it’s replacing. But it is also working harder to motivate the truck than the V6. I totally disagree that the 3.0 couldn’t have been used in this truck and in the big picture, would have made more sense all the way around.