Chevy Colorado Diesel Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What do you guys think of the 2020 Silverado?
FTL Truck tested it and got 32 mpg 3.0 Inline 6
This is impressive for a full size truck.

Things I have noticed about the new 3.0
Very thin 20wt oil
Normal water temp is 210F
They moved the DPF as close as they could to the exhaust manifold to keep the DPF HOT
This helps the DPF burn off the soot....
200cc of displacement brings that engine a lot of HP and Torque over the 2.8

So I wonder if the 2.8 was installed in the Silverado.......... what mpg would it get.
And I bet it would be in the low 20s

I think if the 3.0 was installed in the Colorado the mpg would be even better than 32..

If the new 10 speed works so well in the Silverado Diesel ....... Why is it not in the Colorado?
Ford put the 10 speed in the Ranger! What gives..... Same transmission as GM although each has its own programming..

I do wonder how the high operating temp and thin oil in conjunction with an all aluminum engine will last.
Time will tell...

I read an article that said these light duty diesels are not built like the big rig diesels and will not last like a big rig diesel does..... That’s concerning....

Things I noticed about my Colorado.........

First off I have been very impressed with this truck.
25,000 miles (1 year old now)
I have owned 4 Rangers in a row. Had good luck with them. No major issues just your typical cheap Ford parts like brakes ect.... And lots of Rust....

I pulled my toy hauler from NS to Ont and back 6,000 lbs got between 12 and 16 mpg.
I will admit it worked it’s ass off at times. Some of the long steep hills and head winds had me at WOT at times. There were 3 other trips with the trailer. Just not as long....

I been running 2 different monitor apps. One is the Torque Pro . I been watching the soot level in the DPF and how long it takes to regen...
I noticed that back road running at 30 - 50 mph really clogs the DPF quickly.
I noticed that if the DPF is almost ready for a regen and I go for a run on the highway the soot level will drop.
The a amount it drops depends on the length of time spent on the highway.
My guess would be a higher exhaust temp from having your foot into it burns off some of the soot.
I added Amsoil Coolant Boost To help keep temp under control while pulling my trailer. Now the coolant runs at 172 max. This has also helped keep the transmission temp lower too. As the transmission cooler is built into the rad......
I have seen engine oil temps of 250F. It seems the piston cooling jets get the engine oil HOT....

TMI ?

so what do you guys think of the 3.0 litre?

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
I sure like the additional mileage they're citing.

I'd also like to know why they aren't putting a tougher tranny on the 2.8.

It'll take a significant advantage to get me out of my ZR2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
A few thoughts on the 3.0:

1) Love that it has the 10 speed, wish our trucks had that transmission. The 6 speed is gappy for our narrow optimal rev range diesels, and the 6L50 is an ancient transmission in general.
2) Hate that the 3.0 has it's oil pump driven by a belt swimming in hot diesel/EGR loaded motor oil, mounted on the back of the engine in the most difficult to access place imaginable.
3) Like that the low pressure EGR uses post DPF filtered exhaust, for less soot in the motor.
4) Don't like that the tow rating had to be reduced due to engine bay temperature concerns. I think while it is great for emissions, having the DPF that close causes heat issues under the hood when the engine is worked hard. 9.3K is not a terribly impressive tow rating for a FS truck, especially when the 3.0 Ford is rated for 11.5K and RAM for 12.5K.
5) That is one complicated computer controlled thermostat. Cool as long as it all works properly.
6) 0-20W oil? Are they on crack? No way I would run that in a diesel. Recall the RAM 3.0 thin oil spun crank fiasco, they ultimately specified T6, which is 5/40. I run T6 in my 2.8 by the way, with excellent Blackstone Labs reports.
7) 29 PSI is a lotta boost, 36,250 is a lotta PSI in the common rail, the engine block (which does have iron liners) is made entirely of aluminum, and this is a 1st year design that apparently runs hot. What could go wrong...
8) I like the power the engine puts out, quite impressive in this video, towing an over 7K pound travel trailer at 70 MPH and doing it in the upper gears and with apparent ease the whole time. The 3.0 has a lot more power than our 2.8s.


Will watch with interest, but no way I would buy a 1st year 3.0. The main reason I was comfortable buying a 2.8 is the basic engine architecture has been in service for years overseas. GM did arguably manage to screw up the 2.8 for American use, but that is a whole different topic...
 
  • Like
Reactions: oak1971

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
I sure like the additional mileage they're citing.

I'd also like to know why they aren't putting a tougher tranny on the 2.8.

It'll take a significant advantage to get me out of my ZR2.
What gives you the impression the 6L50 isn't tough enough? It has a 460 lb/ft torque rating and I haven't heard of any transmission failures with these trucks...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I sure like the additional mileage they're citing.

I'd also like to know why they aren't putting a tougher tranny on the 2.8.

It'll take a significant advantage to get me out of my ZR2.
That is crazy milage for a FS truck. Impressive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
A few thoughts on the 3.0:

1) Love that it has the 10 speed, wish our trucks had that transmission. The 6 speed is gappy for our narrow optimal rev range diesels, and the 6L50 is an ancient transmission in general.
2) Hate that the 3.0 has it's oil pump driven by a belt swimming in hot diesel/EGR loaded motor oil, mounted on the back of the engine in the most difficult to access place imaginable.
3) Like that the low pressure EGR uses post DPF filtered exhaust, for less soot in the motor.
4) Don't like that the tow rating had to be reduced due to engine bay temperature concerns. I think while it is great for emissions, having the DPF that close causes heat issues under the hood when the engine is worked hard. 9.3K is not a terribly impressive tow rating for a FS truck, especially when the 3.0 Ford is rated for 11.5K and RAM for 12.5K.
5) That is one complicated computer controlled thermostat. Cool as long as it all works properly.
6) 0-20W oil? Are they on crack? No way I would run that in a diesel. Recall the RAM 3.0 thin oil spun crank fiasco, they ultimately specified T6, which is 5/40. I run T6 in my 2.8 by the way, with excellent Blackstone Labs reports.
7) 29 PSI is a lotta boost, 36,250 is a lotta PSI in the common rail, the engine block (which does have iron liners) is made entirely of aluminum, and this is a 1st year design that apparently runs hot. What could go wrong...
8) I like the power the engine puts out, quite impressive in this video, towing an over 7K pound travel trailer at 70 MPH and doing it in the upper gears and with apparent ease the whole time. The 3.0 has a lot more power than our 2.8s.


Will watch with interest, but no way I would buy a 1st year 3.0. The main reason I was comfortable buying a 2.8 is the basic engine architecture has been in service for years overseas. GM did arguably manage to screw up the 2.8 for American use, but that is a whole different topic...

Looks like you been watching this new motor closely. Me too
I like the look of the Silverado.
Been watching a guy on YouTube Chad Ivan. He is doing videos on how his 3.0 litre does.
Putting the DPF close to the motor sounded like a great idea until I herd about under hood high temperatures.

GM failed badly when they build the all aluminum 2.5 for the Vega many moons ago.
The Japanese use a Nickasil or other coating on the aluminum that is very hard.
If this 3.0 is all aluminum and has no steel liners......... I hope they have some sort of coating on the aluminum to give it hardness.

Yes 20wt oil. I can’t believe that ether.....
They do it to increase milage. But at the cost of engine longevity????

Time will tell how good it is.
Going to be watching this motor very closely...

Rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
If this 3.0 is all aluminum and has no steel liners......... I hope they have some sort of coating on the aluminum to give it hardness. Rob
From GM's marketing materials:

"The 3.0L Duramax cylinder block is made of a cast aluminum alloy that provides the strength required to support the high combustion pressures that occur within a diesel engine, while also offering an approximately 25 percent mass savings over a comparable cast iron engine block. Iron cylinder liners are used within the aluminum block to insure truck durability".

So rest easy there. Hard sufaced aluminum can work great, all my motorcycles use that tech, but good old iron liners are better in this application I think. Iron is a little porous and holds oil nicely, which is a bonus.

Forgot to mention, I also like the water charge air cooler setup, which is compact and efficient. Also really like the idea of thermal management warming up the engine quickly, the aluminum block should help with this too. Diesels do their best when heat soaked and fully warm, sounds like this engine gets there quick. Aluminum also sheds heat really well, which is why it is used for heads, as it is in our 2.8s. Recall the bad old days of aluminum heads, iron blocks and head gasket failures. I guess they figured that out.

With my 2.8, while it warms up reasonably quickly and runs great, I can tell it takes about 10 miles of driving to fully "come in" as far as being super thrifty with fuel goes. My wife has a plug in hybrid that goes 20 miles in EV mode. I drive that when running local errands. I try to only use the truck if driving a minimum of 10 miles. It typically gets driven 30 miles or more. The car is saving us over $100 a month on gas, this after backing out the cost to charge it. It kinda feels like cheating when I drive it - hehe....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coloradorob

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
507 Posts
I sure like the additional mileage they're citing.

I'd also like to know why they aren't putting a tougher tranny on the 2.8.

It'll take a significant advantage to get me out of my ZR2.
What additional mileage? My 2.8 will do 32.5 on a decent trip, the 3.0 isn't that much better. Heavier truck as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Sorry, I'm not ready for an aluminum block diesel. I know that alum aero diesels are all the rage for missionary planes in Africa, where they don't get Avgas. They run JP as diesel fuel. But these conversions add 6 figures USD to the cost of the planes that get so equipped. Chevy, even with their economies of scale, certainly did it on the cheap. Oh, and 181 HP, with the 6 speed, is enough to tow ~10,500# of tractor and trailer up and down all mountains and hills in North America. So we're happy with our choice.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
507 Posts
Not sure if relevant, but one thought seems to trigger another. When I was working in QC in manufacturing, I took a class after work in GD&T Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing. One of the subjects was Bonus Tolerancing. "Bonus tolerance is a important concept in GD&T. Bonus tolerance will be available for the geometric dimensioning and tolerancing feature of size with MMC or LMC modifiers. The bonus tolerance reduces the number of rejected parts by increasing the tolerance zone." Loose? I called it "slop" and was severely reprimanded by the instructor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
258 Posts
Not sure if relevant, but one thought seems to trigger another. When I was working in QC in manufacturing, I took a class after work in GD&T Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing. One of the subjects was Bonus Tolerancing. "Bonus tolerance is a important concept in GD&T. Bonus tolerance will be available for the geometric dimensioning and tolerancing feature of size with MMC or LMC modifiers. The bonus tolerance reduces the number of rejected parts by increasing the tolerance zone." Loose? I called it "slop" and was severely reprimanded by the instructor.
Seems like an ad hominem criticism of "slop" is incomplete. My wheelbarrow wheel is certainly "looser" then the crankshaft of our diesels. Ok by me. More to the point, even within the IC engine tech we are discussing, tolerances are case specific. I'm not defending a decision to sacrifice oil consumption for other attributes. I'm just suggesting a POSSIBLE reason for it, which might very well not be the right one....
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
507 Posts
I was suggesting the two could go together. Which may or may not be the case. I admit I have a distrust issue with virtually anything in modern manufacturing.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top