GM Reveals 2017 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Oh...well I guess I assumed wrong on that one!

In your defence ... an extra ~15% more displacement should net a decent improvement in power. Especially when 3-ish litre diesels seem to be up in the mid 200's power wise. Thats where FCA, BMW, Mercedes, and VW seem to keep diesels of that size at least. So grossly exceeding GM's 181 hp in their 2.8 shouln't be that hard.

Maybe GM was limited by the fact that they're using an enormous 4 banger that will probably shake itself to pieces if you spin it too fast, while Ford picked an inline 5 which has ... wonky ... vibration issues of its own. I can't imagine a way that it wouldn't try to buck end-to-end as its running.

Everybody else was sensible enough to make those medium sized engines with 6 cylinders.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

But if Ford drops the 2.7 V6 turbo in there, the twins don't currently have an engine to compete with that combination of HP/TQ. So that means 5.3 V8, or the LF3/LF4 (likely LF3) to the rescue. But I'm not convinced GM will put a bigger more powerful engine in these twins unless they do a real sport version.

If they really want to make a splash, they offer the 2.7 EB. If they go with the 3.3L from the F150, 290 horsepower; 265 lb.-ft. of torque, which is comparable to the GM V6 at 308/275.

I doubt they come out of the gate with both a diesel and gas engine with roughly equivalent specs though.

[6spdhyperblue]

If they offer the 2.7 they will kill the competition. If it fits, what's the harm in offering all the engines as a option and let people decide for themselves.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

If they offer the 2.7 they will kill the competition. If it fits, what's the harm in offering all the engines as a option and let people decide for themselves.

I hope ford stuff the 2.7 in the Ranger. That would be one hell of a fun package. From what I have heard the 2.7 can scoot the F-150 pretty good, I can only imagine how it would fare in a smaller truck

[6spdhyperblue]

It would stick it to gm for not offering the 4.3.

The 3.6, 4.3, and the diesel are all different enough they could offer all three

I'm a grown up, I can decide which one I prefer based on my needs

Maybe it impacts the cafe strategy

My cousin has a 2.7 in a 2wd f150 sport and it hauls. Maybe ford follow suit and has a specific engine for their raptor ranger. Maybe only that truck gets the 2.7 ecoboost

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

Correct, all rear end gears were the same when I compared the mileage. The 8speed was worse by one on the highway.

Could it have been due to different standards used to measure mileage versus the prior methods used on the 6 speed? It seems I have seen this sort of thing happen before.

I just don't understand how the 8 speed could actually be rated worse on the highway, although I have confirmed what you said above. If I remember correctly, it was for the 5.3 2 wheel drive versions.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

It would stick it to gm for not offering the 4.3.

The 3.6, 4.3, and the diesel are all different enough they could offer all three

I'm a grown up, I can decide which one I prefer based on my needs

Maybe it impacts the cafe strategy

My cousin has a 2.7 in a 2wd f150 sport and it hauls. Maybe ford follow suit and has a specific engine for their raptor ranger. Maybe only that truck gets the 2.7 ecoboost

Lots of people were hoping for the 4.3 in the midsize twins and disappointed when it didn't happen. I may have been a little bit, but then again the 3.6 is more than adequate for daily driving and most situations you'd actually use a midsize truck for. I had the 3.6 in my prior Camaro, and now in my 15' Colorado and it runs nice and strong in my opinion. The jump in power compared to the inline 3.5 in my old 2006 Colorado is like going from a V6 to a V8.

That said, the 4.3 would have been a little beast of an engine in the twins. But the name of the game was fuel mileage, and I'm betting the LFX (at the time) did just slightly better overall. Now that the trucks have the LGZ engine with cylinder deactivation (like the 4.3 has) now the 4.3 doesn't even have that advantage anymore. But the TQ advantage is considerable.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

It would stick it to gm for not offering the 4.3.

The 3.6, 4.3, and the diesel are all different enough they could offer all three

I'm a grown up, I can decide which one I prefer based on my needs

Maybe it impacts the cafe strategy

My cousin has a 2.7 in a 2wd f150 sport and it hauls. Maybe ford follow suit and has a specific engine for their raptor ranger. Maybe only that truck gets the 2.7 ecoboost

GM is run by grown ups. They can decide what to offer based on their needs

[6spdhyperblue]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

GM is run by grown ups. They can decide what to offer based on their needs

That worked out well for them. Lol
Let's not forget they stumbled on the Colorado and canyon success, don't act like they are all knowing

The Colorado PM seems clueless too btw

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Nicul15

That worked out well for them. Lol
Let's not forget they stumbled on the Colorado and canyon success, don't act like they are all knowing

The Colorado PM seems clueless too btw

Yeah, running the company rationally instead of by internal corporate edicts on stupid things like 'Innovative Product Quotas' or using the number of wheel spokes as a 'Unique Brand Identifier' (like they were doing ~10 years ago) has been very good for them. Glad we agree on that.

Anyway, why in the world would they re-introduce the Colorado & Canyon if they didn't think they'd find success? As in, what justification would there possibly be for spending a billion or so on the midsize truck program when their analysis says that it will be a failure?

Of course they're not all knowing (see the sales figures of every vehicle on the Alpha platform, for example). But they know an awful lot more about the business of selling cars than me or you.


Frankly, I don't see what the obsession is with putting the 4.3L in the Colorado. If they used it, it would be geared taller which negates the torque advantage that the engine has over the 3.6L. And it would do this while making noticeably less power. I just don't get it.

[6spdhyperblue]

Power delivery characteristics that brought me to GM(ecotec gen v vs 5.0&M4&porsche) over foreign and domestic dohc in the first place

They admitted that mid size surpiez d them in sales

[KMPrenger]

Even if the sales did surprise them (which I can agree with that statement somewhat...sure was hard to keep them on the lots for a long time) GM certainly did not "stumble" across the success by accident.

Market research obviously told them it was worth the cost/risk to get back into the mid-size truck segment again. So they did, and they found success. Hardly an accident.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

..

Frankly, I don't see what the obsession is with putting the 4.3L in the Colorado. If they used it, it would be geared taller which negates the torque advantage that the engine has over the 3.6L. And it would do this while making noticeably less power. I just don't get it.

Agree. Yeah...as like I said above I thought the 4.3 would be nice, the 3.6 also great for this truck. People tend to think you have to rev the engine high to get much power out of it, but I completely disagree. It has fantastic low end TQ for a mid-size V6. The TQ curve is nice and flat.

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Even if the sales did surprise them (which I can agree with that statement somewhat...sure was hard to keep them on the lots for a long time) GM certainly did not "stumble" across the success by accident.

Market research obviously told them it was worth the cost/risk to get back into the mid-size truck segment again. So they did, and they found success. Hardly an accident.

Yep I would say more surprised than stumbled across. And that success is why Ford is bring back the Ranger. Which hopefully is successful as well, bc competition means consumer wins