Topic: Mpg for new Colorado/Canyon

[Ex-airbalancer]

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/09/gm-releases-v-6-mpg-numbers-for-2015-chevrolet-coloradogmc-canyon.html

[EV-Light]

 

disappointing to say the least...drinks almost as much gas as the Ford's V6 Ecoboost.

[blotter]

^^^^^

no kidding.

4x4 =  17 city and 24 highway.

meanwhile the Tacoma is listed at 16 / 21
not a much of a difference. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

They've got 69 more hp than the Taco and get (marginally) better fuel economy. That's not bad to me.

[revalations]

Wait for the Diesel option, I'm sure lots of folks are.

[tooscoops]

exactly. the gas versions are for people who want a small truck... the diesel will be for those who want fuel economy.

[EV-Light]

They've got 69 more hp than the Taco and get (marginally) better fuel economy. That's not bad to me.

It is, considering the Tacoma is 6? 7? years old now?

[blotter]

^
bingo.

and i'd like to see the 4x4 numbers chart (nice chart Sir O!)


- granted the GM has quite a few more ponies, they're neck in neck for torque.
 

exactly. the gas versions are for people who want a small truck... the diesel will be for those who want fuel economy.

but people want both, if it was all about fuel numbers, than the RAM has got you covered.
however, even with the gas, the fuel numbers are what was pretty important to make this a volume seller.
So far the GM Twins (a la V6) are simply looking like another Tacoma with no MAJOR edge.
(yes it has a few extra features, yes a few more ponies, yes a new tranny and engine)
but the Taco is like 8 years old and I'd argue from what I'm seeing still very competitive with the NEW trucks.

I'll reserve myself final judgement until the full specs come out and what the discounts are going to be, but so far I'm thinking these (V6) are a fail.   At least they look to be failing to meet the hype.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

They've got 69 more hp than the Taco and get (marginally) better fuel economy. That's not bad to me.

It is, considering the Tacoma is 6? 7? years old now?

GM can't change physics. A 305hp engine is going to require 305hp worth of fuel at full chat. Weight and poor aerodynamics are always going to have a pretty big impact on pickup fuel consumption. Much smaller and lighter trucks would help enormously, but nobody seems to be able to make the business case for one.

An 8 speed will be fitted at some point in the next few years which will help, but there are going to be supply constraints for the first while, so this is getting the 6 speed auto.

I can't claim that chart as mine. It was from Pickuptrucks.com, I forgot the link. Part of the release:

Available this fall, the new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon will offer the best fuel economy of any gas V-6 pickup truck sold in the U.S. Initial EPA fuel economy estimates have the new midsize achieving 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway in the 4x2 extended-cab configuration, while the 4x4 models will offer a best mpg of 17 city and 24 highway. Combined EPA ratings for both the Colorado and Canyon will be 21 mpg for 4x2 models and 20 mpg for 4x4 models.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/09/gm-releases-v-6-mpg-numbers-for-2015-chevrolet-coloradogmc-canyon.html

[jonl]

disappointing to say the least...drinks almost as much gas as the Ford's V6 Ecoboost.

The 3.7 isn't the Ecoboost, which is a 3.5

I think the mileage is decent, considering the power and it's only slightly smaller truck.  My 5.0 crewcab 4x4 averages 13 lifetime, with 25% of that hauling a trailer, and empty on interstate, 11.5 or so.

I think the biggest advantage for these new trucks is improved urban utility due to OA size & (hopefully) improved turning radius (unlike the Taco).

[rrocket]

On hold!

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2014/10/gm-puts-stop-delivery-order-colorado-canyon-twins/