Chevy Colorado Diesel Forum banner

21 - 40 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
Guess it’s time to start doing some home work on electric trucks wonder if they are a viable option. That’s is what they are pushing toward anyway
The electric option has some major issues also.
Lease do not buy.
Do not keep past the warranty.
Lithium batteries have some major issues.
Over charge them and there life is shortened
Under charge them and there life is shortened
If you live in a state where the temperatures are high and there life is very short.
Cant be charged in freezing temperatures
Lose there capability to take a charge over time. Even if you don’t use them.

I been doing a lot of research on lithium batteries. And I bought 27 lithium pouch batteries that were used in an experimental electric bus.
These are lithium ion batteries. Each pouch battery is rated at 3.6 volts and 200 amps.
The rules to take care of lithium for a long life is long. Charge rate, discharge rates, operating temperature.

And the cost of a replacement battery pack is crazy. And in most cases out of the question.

let me ask you guys. Do you have any lithium battery power tools? Had any battery failures?

As I see it 3-5 years and you better get rid of the vehicles .
And considering the cost I just don’t see it as a viable option.
It’s nothing more than a stepping stone to something better. Or the day we face public transportation...

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
I agree. Where will we dispose of all the batteries. Ever seen a battery catch fire. I think that it will create a larger environmental impact than we are now. And if you went overlanding in an electric truck where would you charge it. You'd need a 5000 watt generator that runs on ......oh yeah fuel. And how long would it take to solar charge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I agree. Where will we dispose of all the batteries. Ever seen a battery catch fire. I think that it will create a larger environmental impact than we are now. And if you went overlanding in an electric truck where would you charge it. You'd need a 5000 watt generator that runs on ......oh yeah fuel. And how long would it take to solar charge.
I did some research on recycling lithium and at this time they don’t have a way to break it down and recycle it.
And to top that off, lithium is fairly rare.
Then there is the mess they make when they mine for it. It’s a toxic mess.

The biggest reserve of lithium is in South America.

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Yes but GM bought that plant with the tooling already there. I believe!
They did some changes but didn’t invent the basic tooling.
And it would have no value to them.
Im thinking that no company really wants a diesel with all the rules and regulations in N America.
Full size trucks have better sales and as long as one company makes a diesel for a full size all the others will follow.

If and it’s starting to look like a big if, Ram brings back the Decoda with a diesel and actually puts the v6 diesel in the Gladiator, them that may be a game changer. But it’s not looking good.

Also people need to understand that today’s diesel don’t make a good off-roader or over lander. The particulate filter fills up very fast and can’t be regenerated at slow speeds.
If your heading for a day of off road and you particulate filter is at or close to 100% then that day of off reading can do major damage to 5he filter. Or at the very least shorten its life.
So what mfg would want to warranty that?

Rob
What they should do is make the DPF easily serviceable on light vehicles like it is on big rigs. It is not that difficult to clean them in a shop that has the equipment to do so. Lots of shops out there now cleaning DPFs as all the big trucks have them, and cleaning is a lot more cost effective than replacing. Diesel may be under fire in light duty trucks and cars, but it is here to stay for awhile in ships, trains and heavy trucks, as diesel is the only cost effective and technologically viable way to move big and heavy things long distances. It is worth noting, our truck's welded up DPFs can be serviced, the shop cuts them open, cleans them, and welds them back up again. It just costs more than it would if they could be taken apart with no welding involved.

As for lithium batteries, management of their temperature, charge rate, depth of discharge and recharge, etc is critical. Tweaking the "recipe" used is a differentiation also. Tesla is very good at all this, their battery packs are liquid cooled, extremely well managed and robust. A lot of engineering goes into these systems beyond the battery itself to support and maximize the battery's durability and performance.

The fact does remain that mining for lithium is "messy" to put it nicely, but wannabe environmentally conscious feel good capitalists (this species of human is most concentrated in Northern California), tend to overlook that reality because all that mess is occurring in far away 3rd world hellholes and not in their back yard. Then there is disposal. I was told by a local body shop that works on Teslas (there are not that many that are authorized to do so) getting rid of nuclear waste is probably easier than disposing of damaged Tesla battery packs.

To be fair, there are a ton of laptop batteries and we all carry phones and do not worry about where the battery materials come from or where they go when the device's lives are over. Yes, a phone or a laptop has a small lithium battery compared to a vehicle, but there are a lot of phone and laptop batteries out there, and most of us dispose of these improperly. Not really sure if "proper" disposal is even all that proper, as "recycled" electronics typically wind up in a concentrated smoking toxic pile in Asia somewhere. Again, we do not worry about far away Hellholes.

More EV's are coming though, like it or not. Electric trucks/vans would be ideal for local deliveries and services. Charge at night at cheap rates, drive around town during the day where electric works best. Maintenance costs should be lower too. For pure economic reasons, I imagine we will see lots of EV trucks in this kind of role fairly soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I agree. Where will we dispose of all the batteries. Ever seen a battery catch fire. I think that it will create a larger environmental impact than we are now. And if you went overlanding in an electric truck where would you charge it. You'd need a 5000 watt generator that runs on ......oh yeah fuel. And how long would it take to solar charge.
I did some research on recycling lithium and at this time they don’t have a way to break it down and recycle it.
And to top
What they should do is make the DPF serviceable on light vehicles like it is on big rigs. It is not that difficult to clean them in a shop that has the equipment to do so. Lots of shops out there now cleaning DPFs as all the big trucks have them, and cleaning is a lot more cost effective than replacing. Diesel may be under fire in light duty trucks and cars, but it is here to stay for awhile in ships, trains and heavy trucks, as diesel is the only cost effective and technologically viable way to move big and heavy things long distances.

As for lithium batteries, management of their temperature, charge rate, depth of discharge and recharge, etc is critical. Tweaking the "recipe" used is a differentiation also. Tesla is very good at all this, their battery packs are liquid cooled, extremely well managed and robust. A lot of engineering goes into these systems beyond the battery itself to support and maximize the battery's durability and performance.

The fact does remain that mining for lithium is "messy" to put it nicely, but wannabe environmentally conscious feel good capitalists (this species of human is most concentrated in Northern California), tend to overlook that reality because all that mess is occurring in far away 3rd world hellholes and not in their back yard. Then there is disposal. I was told by a local body shop that works on Teslas (there are not that many that are authorized to do so) getting rid of nuclear waste is probably easier than disposing of damaged Tesla battery packs.

To be fair, there are a ton of laptop batteries and we all carry phones and do not worry about where the battery materials come from or where they go when the device's lives are over. Yes, a phone or a laptop has a small lithium battery compared to a vehicle, but there are a lot of phone and laptop batteries out there, and most of us dispose of these improperly. Not really sure if "proper" disposal is even all that proper, as "recycled" electronics typically wind up in a concentrated smoking toxic pile in Asia somewhere. Again, we do not worry about far away Hellholes.

More EV's are coming though, like it or not. Electric trucks/vans would be ideal for local deliveries and services. Charge at night at cheap rates, drive around town during the day where electric works best. Maintenance costs should be lower too. For pure economic reasons, I imagine we will see lots of EV trucks in this kind of role fairly soon.
Very well said sir.
If my truck makes it past the warranty and the DPF plugs I will cut it out of the system and try cleaning it.

The question stands
Why is GM abandoning the 2.8
Especially after spending so much money buying the rights to this motor.
What is the EPA going to ask for next?
Is the NOx still to high?
Will they continue to support the 3.0 litre? And I suspect yes. Why not the 2.8
Is there something there running from when it comes to the 2.8
Will the 3.0 fit in the twins?
Are sales of the 2.8 that bad?

Did you know the head of GM is a woman?
and
How many of you bought a twin because you don’t want a full sized truck?

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
The 2.8 has a long history going back to the 90s as the 2.5 "R425" engine. Our engines are refined and updated since then of course, but the bones go back a long way. The biggest issue I think the 2.8 has is it does not hold enough oil for all the EGR it has rammed down it's throat. The 2.8 is a bastard VM/GM creation, it has been a significant warranty issue for GM, and I am not surprised they have moved on.

In contrast, the 3.0 is a clean sheet in house GM design, they have a lot invested in the 3.0, and they are using that engine in a bunch of different vehicles. The feature that the 3.0 has that interests me most is the DPF up by the head and the use of filtered EGR. I think any modern diesel's greatest reliability challenge, aside from crappy American fuel ruining the sensitive common rail system, is the amount of EGR they have to run to meet emissions. EGR really compromises the efficiency and reliability of the engine. It is akin to us humans being required to eat some of our own sh%t. In small amounts, it might not kill us, but it is hardly optimal...

Taking post DPF filtered soot free EGR has to help with this. The downside of that design is the hot emissions stuff is right there next to the engine. GM has enough insulating material on those components to re-enter them from space, and still they had to reduce the 3.0's towing capacity due to under the hood heat issues.

Like a good sporting event, plan to follow the 3.0 to see how it does. GM did a lot of things with that engine, including the belt driven oil pump and variable thermostat valve thing that sends heated water to different areas as needed. While a belt bathed in oil seems like the probable trouble spot, suspecting that is too easy. I suspect that the thermostat tech may turn out to be a headache for GM.

The 2.7 turbo 4 is a pretty good consolation prize. When buying my Canyon in '17, if the 2.7 turbo 4, V6 and 2.8 diesel were the choices, it would have been between the diesel and the 2.7, and I probably would have gone with the 2.7. I like that the 2.7 was designed to go into trucks from the outset, and that it is not a repurposed car engine. I am a big fan of forced induction as it does not go soft at high elevation. My 2.8 feels like the king of the road at 11,000 feet topping the various passes here in Colorado, passing all the wheezing naturally aspirated vehicles. The 2.7 would provide the same robust experience.

As for the twins, ya, I did not want a full size truck, and the format of the twins is perfect. They are meatier and manlier than a Taco or Ranger or God forbid, a Ridgeline, but not an enormous barge like the average FS truck. To my sensibilities, the twins are the "Goldilocks" format for a truck. The vibe I clearly get is GM really wants us to "trade up" and buy FS trucks and the twins are a bit of an afterthought. One definitely gets more truck for the buck with a FS. That is OK - I want what I want.

The 2.8 has been a decidedly roll your own project with all the tuning and tweaking I did to it, but what the Hell, it has been fun, and the truck is awesome. Just the other day I was testing different trans tune files and wound up with a hybrid file with GDE's latest trans tune but an earlier calibration settings file overlaid on it that works dead on perfect. Had a slight "flare" going into 2nd gear before. Now all of the shifts are butter smooth but slip free. All of these transmissions are slightly different from each other.

GM does have a female CEO - Mary Barra. From what I have seen of her, Ms. Barra seems quite cool actually. She has an engineering background, unusual for a CEO. Typically CEOs have a "strategic" full of sh%t background 😆
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
The 2.8 has a long history going back to the 90s as the 2.5 "R425" engine. Our engines are refined and updated since then of course, but the bones go back a long way. The biggest issue I think the 2.8 has is it does not hold enough oil for all the EGR it has rammed down it's throat. The 2.8 is a bastard VM/GM creation, it has been a significant warranty issue for GM, and I am not surprised they have moved on.

In contrast, the 3.0 is a clean sheet in house GM design, they have a lot invested in the 3.0, and they are using that engine in a bunch of different vehicles. The feature that the 3.0 has that interests me most is the DPF up by the head and the use of filtered EGR. I think any modern diesel's greatest reliability challenge, aside from crappy American fuel ruining the sensitive common rail system, is the amount of EGR they have to run to meet emissions. EGR really compromises the efficiency and reliability of the engine. It is akin to us humans being required to eat some of our own sh%t. In small amounts, it might not kill us, but it is hardly optimal...

Taking post DPF filtered soot free EGR has to help with this. The downside of that design is the hot emissions stuff is right there next to the engine. GM has enough insulating material on those components to re-enter them from space, and still they had to reduce the 3.0's towing capacity due to under the hood heat issues.

Like a good sporting event, plan to follow the 3.0 to see how it does. GM did a lot of things with that engine, including the belt driven oil pump and variable thermostat valve thing that sends heated water to different areas as needed. While a belt bathed in oil seems like the probable trouble spot, suspecting that is too easy. I suspect that the thermostat tech may turn out to be a headache for GM.

The 2.7 turbo 4 is a pretty good consolation prize. When buying my Canyon in '17, if the 2.7 turbo 4, V6 and 2.8 diesel were the choices, it would have been between the diesel and the 2.7, and I probably would have gone with the 2.7. I like that the 2.7 was designed to go into trucks from the outset, and that it is not a repurposed car engine. I am a big fan of forced induction as it does not go soft at high elevation. My 2.8 feels like the king of the road at 11,000 feet topping the various passes here in Colorado, passing all the wheezing naturally aspirated vehicles. The 2.7 would provide the same robust experience.

As for the twins, ya, I did not want a full size truck, and the format of the twins is perfect. They are meatier and manlier than a Taco or Ranger or God forbid, a Ridgeline, but not an enormous barge like the average FS truck. To my sensibilities, the twins are the "Goldilocks" format for a truck. The vibe I clearly get is GM really wants us to "trade up" and buy FS trucks and the twins are a bit of an afterthought. One definitely gets more truck for the buck with a FS. That is OK - I want what I want.

The 2.8 has been a decidedly roll your own project with all the tuning and tweaking I did to it, but what the Hell, it has been fun, and the truck is awesome. Just the other day I was testing different trans tune files and wound up with a hybrid file with GDE's latest trans tune but an earlier calibration settings file overlaid on it that works dead on perfect. Had a slight "flare" going into 2nd gear before. Now all of the shifts are butter smooth but slip free. All of these transmissions are slightly different from each other.

GM does have a female CEO - Mary Barra. From what I have seen of her, Ms. Barra seems quite cool actually. She has an engineering background, unusual for a CEO. Typically CEOs have a "strategic" full of sh%t background 😆
Yes I think the amount of soot in the oil is a real concern for longevity.
I fully agree on the DPF on the 3.0 causing under hood temperature issues that made GM decrease the towing capabilities.
That made me start thinking. GM moved the DPF assembly closer to the motor so there would be less forced regens. I watch my DPF soot levels very closely. I have noticed that below 60mph there is not enough heat to burn off the DPF soot. At 60mpg the DPF will pretty much hold its own. Not gaining soot and not burning any more off then the engine makes. At 70mph I can actually watch the soot content lower as the heat from the exhaust actually burns off the soot. At 50mpg and below the DPF soot accumulation is massive and fills the DPF very fast.
And in the winter and on cool rainy days the DPF doesn’t hold enough heat to burn off any soot.
So I was thinking of wrapping the DPF to give a heat soaking more like the 3.0 does.
I figure this may not be a good idea when pulling a heavy load in the summer as it may over heat the DPF. Need more information on how much heat this DPF can take. And if there is any difference in the materials used in the DPF on the 3.0 Litre compared to the 2.8.
The idea behind this is that less regens and a DPF that seldom ever gets full will last longer and get better fuel economy.

Everything on the 3.0 litre seems to be done for maximum fuel efficiency.
Move the DPF closer to the motor to get more heat into the DPF reducing the need to spray fuel into the DPF to get it hot enough to clean out the soot.
A coolant valve to send coolant to places that need to be heated fast to get the best mileage
An oil pump that lowers oil pressure to reduce the load on the engine when high oil pressure isn’t needed.
On one of the YouTube videos I noticed when the tow haul button is pressed engine water temp is lowered and oil pressure is raised. water temp was 210 dropped to 180 oil pressure was next to nothing went to what we would consider normal for our trucks.
Spooky and cool at the same time.

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
....Everything on the 3.0 litre seems to be done for maximum fuel efficiency.... Spooky and cool at the same time.

Rob
You and I are completely on the same page. Indeed, putting the DPF where GM did on the 3.0 keeps it passively regenerating a lot more without a doubt. Even the use of the aluminum block (another aggressive move) is aimed at fuel efficiency, All of the things GM did with the 3.0 are really cool, in theory anyway. I will watch with interest to see how it all works out in the real world in the hands of owners.

It is "cheating" of course, but when EGR is taken out of the equation via a tune, the DPF carries a much lighter soot load due to a hotter/cleaner burn. I am seeing 750 mile regen intervals on my intact tuned 2.8. The tradeoff of course is my 2.8's NOx levels no doubt would make VW blush, even though DEF is still on, if only at stock usage levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
I came to the MiniMax from a F-150 with the EcoBoost V-6 for a number of reasons, one being the availability of a long bed and crew cab in the Colorado. The fuel economy of the Chevy significantly outperformed the Ford, and outperformed the gas-powered option for the Colorado, even with the higher price of diesel figured in. I watched the Ranger re-intro with interest but when they didn't make a functional long bed available, any performance advantage became moot. If Chevy drops the diesel, I'll choose the most fuel-efficient truck with a long bed, crew cab, and good towing numbers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I came from a '99 Suburban with the 6.5 turbo diesel. I tow a race trailer most weekend 120 miles round trip to the track during the warmer months. Although a gas Suburban or 1500 could have handled the towing, the mileage is terrible, plus I like a diesel. I was going to buy a new Colorado a few months back but couldn't order the right color so I opted for a low mileage certified used one. I looked excitedly at a 1500 with the 3.0 but knowing that all new engines go thru growing pains I didn't want to be on the bleeding edge. I've never owned a pick-up truck before. I figure by the time I want to sell my Colorado diesel they'll have any bugs worked out of the 3.0. By then I'll just have to make a decision between a 1500 3.0 or Suburban 3.0, or who knows, maybe even a Tahoe 3.0. It'll take a lot to make me want to tow an enclosed trailer with a gas engine again! I've got over 310,000 miles on my Suburban Diesel and it still runs great so it could be many years before I'm looking to replace my Colorado diesel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Discussion Starter #33
Yes I think the amount of soot in the oil is a real concern for longevity.
I fully agree on the DPF on the 3.0 causing under hood temperature issues that made GM decrease the towing capabilities.
That made me start thinking. GM moved the DPF assembly closer to the motor so there would be less forced regens. I watch my DPF soot levels very closely. I have noticed that below 60mph there is not enough heat to burn off the DPF soot. At 60mpg the DPF will pretty much hold its own. Not gaining soot and not burning any more off then the engine makes. At 70mph I can actually watch the soot content lower as the heat from the exhaust actually burns off the soot. At 50mpg and below the DPF soot accumulation is massive and fills the DPF very fast.
And in the winter and on cool rainy days the DPF doesn’t hold enough heat to burn off any soot.
So I was thinking of wrapping the DPF to give a heat soaking more like the 3.0 does.
I figure this may not be a good idea when pulling a heavy load in the summer as it may over heat the DPF. Need more information on how much heat this DPF can take. And if there is any difference in the materials used in the DPF on the 3.0 Litre compared to the 2.8.
The idea behind this is that less regens and a DPF that seldom ever gets full will last longer and get better fuel economy.

Everything on the 3.0 litre seems to be done for maximum fuel efficiency.
Move the DPF closer to the motor to get more heat into the DPF reducing the need to spray fuel into the DPF to get it hot enough to clean out the soot.
A coolant valve to send coolant to places that need to be heated fast to get the best mileage
An oil pump that lowers oil pressure to reduce the load on the engine when high oil pressure isn’t needed.
On one of the YouTube videos I noticed when the tow haul button is pressed engine water temp is lowered and oil pressure is raised. water temp was 210 dropped to 180 oil pressure was next to nothing went to what we would consider normal for our trucks.
Spooky and cool at the same time.

Rob
I'm fairly certain that I'm not a fan of the design choices on the 3.0. If either the cooling system automation or variable oil pressure systems go sideways the outcome is likely to be poor, also serviceability seems like it was not even a consideration.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I'm fairly certain that I'm not a fan of the design choices on the 3.0. If either the cooling system automation or variable oil pressure systems go sideways the outcome is likely to be poor, also serviceability seems like it was not even a consideration.
I agree that’s a spooky engine.
they are full on looking for milage. And they got it.
But considering all the failure points they have added to this design and reduced towing, I believe this will more than likely go down as a GM disaster.
And GM will say it failed because no one really wanted a diesel.

But we do want a diesel but reliability comes first milage is second.

When you compare the Ram V6 3.0 diesel with the GM the mileage is only 1 or 2 MPG in the difference. For me that is not enough difference to add so many failure points.

If the reason to drop the 2.8 was a lack of sales to support the factory wear these engines we’re built then how long will it take for MFGs to understand that in today’s world you can’t hide your screw ups.
With forums like this the word gets out fast if there is any issues. And there has been to many issues with the 2.8. Add to that the poor service provided by GM. As in no parts stock. Service dept staff not understanding how to fix issues. Sensor failures. Turbo failures.
And internal engine part failures.
And even though these are not the norm or may have been caused by abuse or a tune, they still scare away potential sales. People are not interested in spending time at a dealership service department.
One of the reasons I have not added a tune is because I don’t truly trust the 2.8. So warranty is crucial.
If you look at the difference in power between our 2.8 and the Cumins 2.8 it’s obvious ours is already being pushed to make power. Expecting any more will reduce reliability. A 2.8 is tiny. I would expect cumins to build a much better engine than GM. Especially with all there experience. But obviously they chose to keep the HP and Torque no. down for reliability.

I have read that parts suppliers like Delhi, will make a part that a design engineer will incorporate into there vehicle and that part may turn out to be a complete failure.
And that failure gets blamed on the MFGs. And I suppose most of the blame should go to engineering for being stupid enough to use that part.
What I am saying is that most of these new ideas are coming from places like Delphi not the MFGs
Anyone else near this?

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Hopefully stateside in the Duramax plant. I’d feel ok about Germany as a second choice

hopefully they’ll have minimal changes in terms of being able to be Swapped into our trucks. Better bottom end would be nice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
GM actually has a plant in Baltimore where they used to make Allison transmissions. They could of used that plant. Baltimore was trying to get GM to revive that facility... But it will probably be done in Mexico or India.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
I wonder if this is because Jeep has shoehorned the 3.0 v6 diesel into there vehicles.
Dodge Ram Jeep Fiat whatever they call them selves now days have refined that 3.0 litre 3 times now and it looks like they are staying with it.

So does this mean GM will buy these 2.8s from a 3rd party?
And at what level of quality control?
I don’t see it being built here considering the cost to do it. And the limited supply sold in N.America
Gm has stopped production of right hand drive vehicles
SO
Where is the global market they talk about.
And don’t say the 3rd world cause they can’t afford it.
Not in Australia as they pulled out of there market.
Not in England it’s another right hand drive country....

Sounds suspiciously like wool sun glasses.......

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
They just need to build the motors here. much different than building the trucks here
That would be one of the most expensive places to build it. With the greedy unions making what? More than $70.00 an hr. .? I don’t think I’m far off on that.
Someone can correct me.
With the money some unions are demanding it’s no wonder big companies don’t want to make stuff here.

edit
I just looked up there salaries and it’s half of what I herd on the news. So ether the internet is wrong or it was news BS..

Rob
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Top