Chevy Colorado Diesel Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just saw this on YouTube from TFLT. Haven't finished watching it yet but it's very interesting what GM has been able to do with this engine. They get a whole bunch of power and torque out of the engine with the way they designed the turbo. And the thing is an inline 4 cylinder and still gets 310 hp w/ 348 ft./ lbs of torque I think it was.

One of the most interesting things I think I've seen so far in the video is that it has an active fuel-economy management mode that it transitions to when you don't need the power, where it shuts off half the cylinders (2 and 3). I've heard of this on a V8, leaving 4 cylinders to run the engine. But never just 2. That's crazy! Don't know what kind of fuel economy it can get though, but it sure does sound like it would do pretty well towing things with that kind of HP and torque numbers.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
It even shows the info for the 2019 3.0L I6 diesel. At 9:36. It's mated to a 10 speed automatic o_O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
The new v8 has Silverado with active fuel management will shut down up to 7 cylinders according to a TFLT video I saw on Tuesday

Doesn’t matter how fancy the engineering is if the truck is ugly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Really? I actually like the look of it :) compared to the 2019 Sierra
I agree with you BURGESS 159 I think the new Sierra looks great but I would be more interested in if they would offer the 2.7 L four-cylinder in the Colorado I might have to give up the ghost(diesel) and go to a gas on my next one!

By the way thanks for posting the video can’t wait to find out more
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
90 Posts
I don’t mind the exterior styling but would have preferred a round not square wheel opening to allow a larger tire.
Very cool tailgate features and I like the square exhaust . Hope they do something with the interior materials and design which I am not a fan of.
I’ll be happy to keep my Colorado for its economy, adequate towing (for me), and ability to fit down most trails without bush stripng the paint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,012 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I see on Chevys website that the 2.7 Turbo gas engine gets 18/21mpg while the 5.3 V8 gets 16/22 mpg....that’s pathetic. Why introduce a new engine when it really isn’t much improvement over your old engines. Yea the city mileage is better so it’s more likely to have a better average overall, but l....I dunno. I’ll just stick with my Canyon and the 2.8. Hopefully the 3.0 Duramax will be better than any of the gas engines.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
164 Posts
I was hoping the 2.7 would be a good motor. But shutting off 2 cyl will make no difference and adds complexity that isn’t needed.
GM screwed up real bad on the 5.3 cyl deactivation that caused many owners major repair bills.
There is hundreds of failures on YouTube. Very poor design. I believe they have ver 2 on the market now. Many out there have deleted the cylinder deactivation disaster by replacing cams, hydraulic lifters ect. A major job
If the cost of ownership exceeds the savings in fuel over the long run, than it’s just a bad idea to start with.
Great we met or beat the Government fuel efficiency standards but wow the customer will suffer in the long run....

Same with the 3.0 diesel. There has already been multiple failures reported in the Variable cooling system. Another really bad design fkup.

Same with this engine stop / start idea that is supposed to save fuel.
How much does it cost to make a starter compared to the amount of fuel saved?
How much pollution does it cost to build a starter compared to the fuel saved?
How long will the teeth on the bendix last doing a start stop over and over.
Most of this technology meets current standards outlined in fuel efficiency but doesn’t take into account the cost of the damage to the environment over the life of the vehicl.

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
The ironic thing is the 5.3 gets slightly better highway fuel economy than the 2.7. The small turbo engine is on the boost all the time to move a FS truck. The 2.7's ratings are 19/22, 20 combined, while the 5.3's are 17/23, 19 combined. The 2.7 in the full size truck would seem to be a pointless exercise. No way I would opt for the 2.7 in a Silverado.

It will be interesting to see what the 2.7 does in the twins, and if it can beat the 3.6's ratings, as the 2.7's displacement and power characteristics would seem to be in much better alignment with our trucks.

As for start/stop - it works great on hybrid cars which use a powerful lithium battery and large generator/traction motor to effortlessly spin up the gas engine. Most times the driver does not even notice the engine shutting down and spinning up in my wife's plug in hybrid, it is that seamless.

I agree though, on a "normal" vehicle with a small starter and 12V battery, start/stop is a curse. My local postman drives an old government issue Jeep, he is the start/stop device, driving 100 yards between mailboxes and shutting off for a few seconds at each one. I can't imagine how annoying having to do that is for him. :LOL:
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top