• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

New 2.8L Colorado Duramax

Anyone wanting a 2019 2.8L Colorado Duramax, word is on the net there is a loss of 2 MPG City on the 2019 GM, 2 wheel drive 2.8 Duramax truck. 2018 4×2 diesel carried a rating of 22 mpg city, 30 mpg highway, and 25 mpg combined, the EPA rates the 2019 model at 20 mpg/30 mpg/23 mpg. No one can explain why, no gear ratio changes or engine tuning differences. Supposedly GM said that they would look into it?????? :stop::eek:
 
BIGR said:
Anyone wanting a 2019 2.8L Colorado Duramax, word is on the net there is a loss of 2 MPG City on the 2019 GM, 2 wheel drive 2.8 Duramax truck. 2018 4×2 diesel carried a rating of 22 mpg city, 30 mpg highway, and 25 mpg combined, the EPA rates the 2019 model at 20 mpg/30 mpg/23 mpg. No one can explain why, no gear ratio changes or engine tuning differences. Supposedly GM said that they would look into it?????? :stop::eek:
Click to expand...

That's not ideal. The truck was already at that "line" of ok, this is good MPG for a truck, but it's a smaller truck. With the 3.0L 1500 coming soon, I wonder how this motor fits in in the future.

If the 1500 3.0L even touches close to 30MPG, I would see no advantage of the Colorado unless you just like a smaller truck and/or don't have the room for a full size.
 
BoostN said:
That's not ideal. The truck was already at that "line" of ok, this is good MPG for a truck, but it's a smaller truck. With the 3.0L 1500 coming soon, I wonder how this motor fits in in the future.

If the 1500 3.0L even touches close to 30MPG, I would see no advantage of the Colorado unless you just like a smaller truck and/or don't have the room for a full size.
Click to expand...


Right there with you on that kind of thinking.

Why not have more room and protection in a half ton truck if it can get within one to three miles per gallon of the Colorado?

My daily driver is a 2002 S-10 4x4 extended cab, its easy to drive and park compared to my 2500HD, but I am always thinking about the possibility of being in a serious crash, I give up a lot of protection, I feel better in a 1/2 ton or bigger.

One of these days I am going to buy a newer truck and I will be looking for one that can get 30 MPG or better on the open highway, guess I might have to wait a few more years.:)
 
On the crash side of things, you really have to look into the crash test results. Some of the full size rucks have more driver and front passenger injuries than the slightly smaller counterparts. I have not seen the results of the Colorado, but speaking to a guy that does all the advanced training for fire/ rescue for all the state of NV, he said the difference of 2016model trucks are amazing compared to just the 2000 model ones. I said " I hate to ask about 90's or 80's- He said "Don't ask. Just sell the trucks to someone you don't know."

Obviously his view point is based on safety primarily. He is usedto buying a new truck every 3 years anyways for his work. He was the one that got me looking at the tesla cars with what he described. It was his families tesla's I drove. Only time he even let's his wife or kids in his truck is if the tesla is down.
 
Crash safety and technology has come a long ways for sure, I have seen some crashes that you would not believe, many I have tried to forget about. Sometimes it really wouldn't matter what they were in, unless it was a tank. As a general rule the majority of collisions (crashes) can be avoided, it is operator error, except for an act of nature, like a tree falls off a bank onto a car.

I agree a 2017 Colorado, would probably be safer than a 1980's or 1990's half ton truck or a 1957 Chevrolet. Air bags, restraint systems and crash structure engineering have come a long ways. Manufactures try to design the vehicles to dissipate impact energies and in a lot of cases design the motor to go under the vehicle instead of through the firewall.

As far as my two trucks, I do feel way safer in my 2006 Chevy, 2500HD, crew cab versus my little 2002 S-10 extended cab. My extended cab S-10 has the suicide door arrangement as I consider it, no post there, just the little half back door closing on the front door on the drivers side. Passenger side is solid, its considered to be a third door truck I guess.

The biggest collision I fear is a head on collision on a 2 lane road, some Jack Ass, is texting and comes across the line and gets me. I see people all the time on the double line or crossing it, and I really get pissed off, :mad:thinking to myself, why can't you keep your vehicle on your side of the road, you Bastard.:mad: You can research it, head on collisions are frequent and are very deadly, usually someone is going to die or get severely injured.

Side collisions are another very dangerous collision. As we already know generally someone runs a red light, stop sign or pulls out in front of someone and gets T-Boned, yelp that's not going to end well.

Ok, Rant off, I told you how I feel.
 
BIGR said:
Right there with you on that kind of thinking.

Why not have more room and protection in a half ton truck if it can get within one to three miles per gallon of the Colorado?
Click to expand...

Y'all are coming at it from the capabilities perspective.

For a wide audience, am sure it comes down to the monthly payment. Making the jump from ~$500 to ~700 a month is just too much money for a lot of people. Especially if this is for personal use and not a corporate asset (which will offset some of the cost through depreciation). That $200 a month will quickly override any concern about incremental safety benefits.


BIGR said:
The biggest collision I fear is a head on collision on a 2 lane road, some Jack Ass, is texting and comes across the line and gets me. . . . As we already know generally someone runs a red light, stop sign or pulls out in front of someone and gets T-Boned, yelp that's not going to end well.
Click to expand...

X-2. Makes me wonder why the media gets so wound-up over something like the rare cruise / rail / aviation incidents and essentially ignores a correctable social behavior that kills *way* more people than one of the regulated methods of transportation. Compared to all of the automotive incidents caused by operator negligence, focus on cruise / rail / aviation is barely worth the attention as those sectors apply lessons learned (slowly perhaps, but they do make corrections). If we could get the press to dig-into and make a national / global news story out of each automotive incident the same way they do with one of those horrible buses / nightmare cruise ships / nasty little planes (example: vehicle's maintenance record, driver's infraction history, driver's mental health, what they did that day, any medication the driver took (even aspirin or Viagra), driver's behavioral attitude in general, driver's toxicology report from blood drawn immediately after the incident, interviews with all of the driver's neighbors, blaming the manufacturer for something that failed due to getting pushed outside of its acceptable use (or the driver ignoring the fact that something was broken), and many other minute and unimportant details), we actually might save lives . . .
 
BIGR said:
As far as my two trucks, I do feel way safer in my 2006 Chevy, 2500HD, crew cab versus my little 2002 S-10 extended cab. My extended cab S-10 has the suicide door arrangement as I consider it, no post there, just the little half back door closing on the front door on the drivers side. Passenger side is solid, its considered to be a third door truck I guess.
Click to expand...

Sorry I said that wrong, got it backwards, rear half door has to shut then the front door closes on top of it. Have to open the front door in order to open the little rear door to get things out or to load things.....you guys know what I mean. :) It is kind of awkward if you are loading groceries and parked beside of another vehicle and space is limited. That's one reason I love my crew cab 2500HD, easier loading for sure.
 
Stupid regen kills fuel economy. My old truck was once a fuel tank. It would knock my fuel economy down to single digits no matter what or how I was driving. It would take a long time, over 50 miles. Too get my fuel economy back. This is all from the computer on the dash. I am sure this is partially the cause on the colorado.
 
Here is a nice little article about a compound turbo kit that produces 100HP over stock, and maintains factory temos and pressures.
Not cheap either. $3675 for the kit.

www.trucktrend.com

Little Giant: SDP’s Compound Turbos Make Loads of Power While Lowering EGTs

We tell the story of the Screamin Diesel Performance compound turbo for the 2.8L Duramax found in the late-model Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. SDP’s Compound Turbos Make Loads of Power While Lowering EGTs.
www.trucktrend.com www.trucktrend.com
 
Good question Mike. These haven't been out long enough for any long term real life durability tests.
But I read or heard that they say they can get more from the setup, but that was the safe numbers for the application.
Interestingly, the company has AM Rods also. Lol
 
Iirc, they did it mainly with the compound turbos, a better flowing air intake, aftermarket exhaust and some judicious ECM reprograming. To handle the additional stress, I believe they replaced the scintered metal rods with forged units.

Now I've got the bug to see if I can find that issue of DP in my stacks of them scattered throughout the house.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top