mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

2014 Colorado

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #38276
      Lex
      Participant

      What engines choices should 2014 Colorado offer?
      I’m thinking
      2.5 gas
      2.0 tt (ecoboost fighter)
      2.8 diesel
      And 3.6 gas
      Is that too much engines choices for Colorado?

    • #39865
      chevtothemax
      Participant

      no such thing as too much choices for a truck. but i think another diesle instead of the 2.5 gas.

    • #39866
      Babersher
      Participant

      Yes it is too much, I dont think a vehicle should never have more than three engine choices. Too much confusion for customer.

      1. Fuel efficient / base version : 2.5 gas

      2. Decent mpg / decent power : Ecoboost / 2.8 diesel

      3. ALL power / top end : 3.6

      But I guess with the diesel it can be up to 4, but thats pushing it.

    • #39867
      Alex Luft
      Keymaster

      Guys, the 2.5 and 2.8 Duramaxes are most likely going to be available here as well. They’re global engines.

    • #39868
      Lex
      Participant

      If there were only 3 available engines, a 2.5 base, 3.6 high end and either a 2.0 tt with 1,500 mark up, or a 2.8 diesel with 5k mark up, i’m guessing that both would have similar power and fuel economy. which would you choose?

    • #39869
      Lex
      Participant

      I don’t see a point for these both Duramax’s. They are too close.

    • #39870
      Babersher
      Participant

      Id pick the 2.0 tt, it would be cheaper and better mpg when not towing/hauling anyhing

      There should definitely only be one duramax, the 2.5 or the 2.8, not both.

    • #39871
      Alex Luft
      Keymaster

      In regards to the Duramaxes:

      2.5 liter Duramax:
      – 150 hp
      – 258 lb.-ft. torque

      2.8 liter Duramax:
      – 180 hp
      – 346 lb.-ft. of torque

      That’s almost 90 lb.-ft. of torque more from the 2.8 over the 2.5. 90 lb.-ft. ain’t “close” in my book, especially when it’s the same engine with a bigger block that doesn’t cost any more to produce over the 2.5.

    • #39872
      Babersher
      Participant

      Alex whats the hp and torque of the 2.0 tt, cant remember.

    • #39873
      Alex Luft
      Keymaster

      @Babersher Depends on which 2.0 Turbo you’re talking about.

      If it’s the new unit in the 2013 ATS and 2013 Malibu, then it’s 272 hp and 260 lb.-ft. of torque in the ATS; if this engine were to appear in the Colorado, then its numbers would be somewhere around those due to the similar RWD layout of the platforms.

    • #39874
      Lex
      Participant

      That’s impressive power from the 2.8, there is no need for 2.5 in colorado for NA market.

    • #39875
      Fyeoms
      Participant

      I would prefer the 2.8L Diesel. I still have the link to the Thai Colorado (Eng) and in one of the pictures it is showing 13.3 km/l which is just over 31 MPG. I suspect that might be the 2.5L Diesel, but if it is the 2.8L then I would think that wasnt to bad. If they want to offer a gas in addition to the diesels, I would still most likely go for the 2.8L. A truck is more about torque than hp!

    • #39876
      RjION
      Participant

      If it’s a small truck like the first gen S-10 … I may go for the 2.5L gas. If it’s a mid size truck like the Colorado is. I’ll not buy one no matter what engine it comes with.

      When it comes to the UTE … I’d consider one. I had a 65 and 70 El Camino and liked the both of them. What I’d have in my driveway right now is a Cruze WAGON with 180-190hp.

    • #39879
      chevtothemax
      Participant

      the current colorado is a small truck the dakota was a midsized. yes the colorado is bigger then the s-10 but so is the silverado 1/2ton over it’s comparable counterpoint so your comment is now moot sorry

    • #39890
      chevtothemax
      Participant

      here is some pics of the chevy montana a very small truck found in south america.

    • #39892
      RjION
      Participant

      Maybe the Colorado is called a small or compact truck, still my moot point is it’s larger then what I want in a small truck.

      Size of a S-10 or what ever name GM puts on the thing, it’s moot to me.

    • #39919
      yabadabadoo
      Participant

      chevytothemax, got to say the montana should be brought here as an option, but with a mild facelift to justify its existence here in the states. Personally I think the concept of the vehicle is great, small (a little too car looking) sporty and utilitarian. Make it a little more rugged and man I think this would do really well, have an SUV version to cover the platform costs ect…

    • #39935
      RjION
      Participant

      chevy montana …….. looks like Montezuma’s revenge

    • #40005
      oldchevyman48
      Participant

      Hi everybody, this is my first here,so bear with me. I believe that next generation Colorado or what other name, should come with the 2.5 gas base engine and 3.6gas, 2.5 ,2.8 diesel as options.

    • #40014
      oldchevyman48
      Participant

      I believe the little Montana ,could be a very useful truck to some people here in the states , now if it was offered in allwheel drive it would be even better.

    • #40018
      Alex Luft
      Keymaster

      @oldchevyman48 Welcome to the GM Authority Forum! 😀

      I like where you’re going with the engine choices in the Colorado and also think the Montana could see some sales success across North America. Unfortunately, all wheel drive isn’t offered on the Montana in South America, but that’s not to say it’s not possible on the platform itself since we all know that the Gamma II plus that underpins the Encore can do AWD.

      My only concern is that the Montana rides on a modified Gamma II platform that’s down-specced for lower cost markets, and I’m pretty certain that AWD wasn’t engineered in.

      Here’s an impressive fact: the Montana has a payload of 1,671 lbs — pretty impressive for such a small car-based truck:
      http://gmauthority.com/blog/2011/03/chevy-montana-toranado-mexico/

    • #40406
      tjs
      Participant

      I’ve always driven a full size truck for the handful of times per year that I need to haul my travel trailer. If the Colorado comes with the option of the 2.8 TD sign me up. That will give me the torque I need for confident pulling, and good mileage and easier parking for the 90% of the time that I’m not towing. They do need to offer a gas 4 cyl for the trades and delivery customers. The V6 would only be needed if they were trying to reach a performance market.

Viewing 21 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.