Chevy Colorado Diesel Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was thinking this 2.7 maybe a good thing for the twins.
Then I watched this ......
Now I am spooked
Maybe the Ranger is a better decision...

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Discussion Starter #2 (Edited)
And I should mention that the 2.3 Ranger pulled a trailer up the Ike at 60 mph all the way not breaking 4000 rpm
Our 2.8 diesel couldn’t do that.
That hAs to make you wonder.

I believe the 2.8 took almost 2 min longer and couldn’t even come close to 60mph

I wonder if Ford is doing any stupid engineering with that 2.3

one thing that really make no sense is shutin* off 2 cyl on the GM 2.7 ... When is that motor ever going to be running on 2 cyl.
I have to think that is just stupid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
175 Posts
And I should mention that the 2.3 Ranger pulled a trailer up the Ike at 60 mph all the way not breaking 4000 rpm
Our 2.8 diesel couldn’t do that.
That hAs to make you wonder.

I believe the 2.8 took almost 2 min longer and couldn’t even come close to 60mph

I wonder if Ford is doing any stupid engineering with that 2.3

one thing that really make no sense is shutin* off 2 cyl on the GM 2.7 ... When is that motor ever going to be running on 2 cyl.
I have to think that is just stupid.
Since you mention towing, the side by side tow comparison showed the Ranger with more suspension wallow. I'm very happy with the tow handling of our Colorado's....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
384 Posts
I'm happy overall with the handling. I just wish I did not have to upgrade to a ZR2 for Multimatics
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
169 Posts
The Ranger has far more horsepower than the 2.8 so it will go faster. The thing is, if not drag racing up that hill to Eisenhower Tunnel (a trip I have made many times) and driving like a normal person, the 2.8 does it with ease. The 2.8 has lots of torque and steadfastly holds it's speed on that hill. A friend who owns an old Ford F250 with the 7.3 diesel in it was riding with me and noted that my Canyon is a "hill climbing machine".

Even though it is slower in TFL's Ike test, I bet the 2.8 uses less than half the fuel of the strung out Ranger or 3.6 for that matter clearing that hill.

The biggest problem I find on that hill is other cars. They get in my way :LOL: The 2.8 has lots of torque and maintains speed, but once some dumbass (almost inevitably in a Subaru) cuts me off and slows me down, there is not a lot of horsepower to get the lost speed back. That is why one does not cut in front of hill climbing Semis. They need to hold onto every MPH and may run your silly ass over...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
The Ranger has far more horsepower than the 2.8 so it will go faster. The thing is, if not drag racing up that hill to Eisenhower Tunnel (a trip I have made many times) and driving like a normal person, the 2.8 does it with ease. The 2.8 has lots of torque and steadfastly holds it's speed on that hill. A friend who owns an old Ford F250 with the 7.3 diesel in it was riding with me and noted that my Canyon is a "hill climbing machine".

Even though it is slower in TFL's Ike test, I bet the 2.8 uses less than half the fuel of the strung out Ranger or 3.6 for that matter clearing that hill.

The biggest problem I find on that hill is other cars. They get in my way :LOL: The 2.8 has lots of torque and maintains speed, but once some dumbass (almost inevitably in a Subaru) cuts me off and slows me down, there is not a lot of horsepower to get the lost speed back. That is why one does not cut in front of hill climbing Semis. They need to hold onto every MPH and may run your silly ass over...
The Ranger and the Colorado both had trailers connected
The Ranger held the speed limit and stayed at or below 4K

The Colorado didn’t come anywhere near the speed limit at wide open throttle.

Not shiiting on the Colorado.
Just the facts.
The little 2.3 kicked its asssss big time.
I expected a diesel to do much better.

Also
the 3.6 did the run at the speed limit but was at RED LINE all the way up.
thats not acceptable to me. No one in there right mind would do that to there truck. Hold it at red line for 8 minutes, that’s crazy.
Just one of the reasons I don’t like the 3.6. No low end torque.

GM has cyl deactivation on the 2.7. That is a total waste of time and adds complexity that isn’t needed.
I been trying to find out more info on Fords 2.3 turbo.
I know they had serious issues with the head gaskets with there open deck block design. Not sure if that issue was fixed.

Ford is famous for some of the stupidest design flaws I have ever seen.
But then if you look close at the 2.7 turbo and the 3.0 diesel, GM may take top spot for dumb designs.
Not sure if it’s a race to make there service departments rich or bankrupt the company from lack of sales.

You can’t produce crap today and get away with it. The internet is a big game changer when it comes to getting info out in a hurry. Produce a stupid design that cost your customers and you will suffer the consequences.

Cost of ownership will win this race. Better find another way to keep the service department busy or your company will not survive...........


Rob
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
384 Posts
I guess I have never truly tested the hill climbing ability of my 2.8. I don't live within at least 600 miles of a Mountain and it does everything I ask well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I guess I have never truly tested the hill climbing ability of my 2.8. I don't live within at least 600 miles of a Mountain and it does everything I ask well.
I have pulled my travel trail at 6000lbs up some pretty big hills and it was impressive to say the least. None of the hills were as long as the Ike.
and nothing else out there could pull as well as the 2.8 for its category......... until Ford put the 2.3 turbo in the Ranger.

Rob
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
384 Posts
Or just keep the 2.8 Colorado. As much as I bag on GM, Ford's "Better Idea" usually isn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Or just keep the 2.8 Colorado. As much as I bag on GM, Ford's "Better Idea" usually isn't.
It’s hard to believe how bad today’s engineers are.
Ford has made some real big fkups.
There 3 valve V8 was a complete failure.
There dual clutch transmission was a complete failure
There head gasket failures on there open deck 4 cyl engines.
There 4x4 power units that had filled for life oil that blew up after a couple of years because the oil turned to goo.
What idiot engineer would think oil lasts forever?
Now they have finally installed drain and fill plugs in the units.

GM has made some real idiot designs too.
Cadalac is full of them.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top