New Chevy Colorado mega-thread

I most certainly did notice. That's one of the reasons she's named Betty. (GIS betty paige devil horns...the red just matches nicely)

 

I'll say this. Even on the highway at speed, the 2.7 with the stick has plenty of oomph provided I don't try to drive her like an F1 racer.

Passing, not a problem. Getting up to speed on an uphill? Pffft. Heck, if I'm really in a hurry and shift hard I'll get some chirping if nothing's in the bed. I don't even grab 5th gear until around 80mph if I'm in a big-assed hurry.

Driving reasonably and remembering she's a 4 banger pickup is key. I know how she handles, and I know the gearing and motor, and I've been driving manual transmissions since I was 6 or 7 years old. Put all that together and I got 0 problem with a 4 on the highway.

 

Okay, but how is the mileage during all of that? I guess it doesn't matter as you aren't accelerating all the time. But I have heard of the 4cyls getting worse MPG in some situations? I guess towing would be the I could imagine, or maybe I just remember incorrectly.

 

https://www.fuelly.com/driver/xaks

Those are my two 4 cyl, 5 speed single cab tacos. Going by per-tank back to 2009.

Always similar: long commute with mostly highway time, with 10-20% bombing around downtown Fort Lauderdale and Miami.

The only times I've been below 21-22 is when I was unemployed and essentially stopped driving except in-town short hops for interviews. And those date ranges are noted.

I calculate mileage per-tank, so it's always 300-450 miles averaged out. Anyone can hyper-mile a short hop. I wanted real results.

Damn, can we threadjack or what?

 

That's pretty good. I see you have the base model, right? That also should have something to do with it.

You dissing my highway record? Lol my 28 MPG was a one-time 10 mile stretch but a best mpg is a best mpg! I didn't hide my 24 mpg tank lol

And threadjacking is a little talent of mine, albeit unwanted. I try not to. But hey, we are still on the topic of the Tacoma's MPG. I wonder if this 2015 colorado will be capable of reaching the MPGs you and I speak of?

 

Not dissin ya at all mate. Just making a point that you were kind enough to demonstrate perfectly. To me, such a short data point is a statistical anomoly, not valid to make a long term decision on. What can I say, I am a man of science and research!

I rank my MPG by large datasets for precisely that reason. If I have a bad day, or few days, or hell even couple of bad WEEKS....I still have good data to use in my decisions. To me, picking what vehicle to drop 20 or more grand on is an important enough thing to warrant considerable thought.

When we had flooding down here this spring and I had a couple days of climbing through two feet of water a couple dozen times, I had a bad tank. Unemployed for 6 weeks? Shitty MPG for that tank.

But I've got enough data to be able to judge pretty darn well what's coming. I have a trip this month where I'll be hauling an 800lb AC unit for a datacenter for three counties, two of which will be city street stop and go.


And I'll have a bad MPG day.

But I'll tell you this much....I'll know ahead of time what my tank MPG will be that week, cause I've done this before.

PLUS, if it isn't, then I have a problem that I can start diagnosing before I get stuck on the side of the road someplace in a situation.

 

I know you weren't

While I agree that one 10 mile test is not good enough for something to rely on, I stick to what I said earlier-it's just a best, like a one time maximum. I actually (now that we're analyzing it) shouldn't have said, "I get 28 MPG hwy," but instead, "The best MPG I have ever gotten was 28 on the highway" but I was making a point. Not to mention, I never said anything about relying on that figure. For me to give a solid average hwy MPG, one would have to consider a few factors:

-Wind speed and direction for the day
-Weather, (precipitation not only on that drive but in the previous days, affecting the road)
-Change in altitude (Example: My ten mile stretch, though flat, could have been a very small constant drop or rise in altitude.
-Whether or not you are behind other vehicles (drag)

And in order to create that data to the best of ones ability would require multiple trips on multiple stretches of road (or just the flattest one can find) and recording the data. I am also a man of science and research!

Speaking of all this, I am in the process of a little experiment for TW pertaining to MPG. I mentioned it earlier, but in case you didn't read it.

You can PM me if you are interested and I will tell you about it and let you know when I post the results.

 

As someone who owns both a 2.7 & 4.0, both are DC, PreRunners. The in town numbers are very close, V6 gets 16.4-16.8 and my 2.7 right around 17.4. Even though the numbers are close, it clearly shows the 4.0L is much more efficient doing the same duties.

Just for reference, we had a 2011 Ford Ranger extended cab, 2.3 auto we used in our business for about two years the same way. Never had a tank below 20mpgs in that truck ever. Grant it, it was not a Tacoma quality wise, but it did get great mileage. Could get 28-30 with that truck without much effort on the highway.

 

I'd day this is a pretty good ballpark. The couple times I did basically ZERO highway driving and only did occasional in-town short hops and a tank lasted a month? Shit mileage. Worst I've had with this truck....20 & 21, in order of worstness. Are your trucks both automatics?

The best 10 in my truck:



Also, look at the miles travelled for those averages. That's what I get per tank.

 

What is the advantage of using the fuelly site? Also we never talked about the colorado 2015 mpg

 

I use it because it's easy to use (has an app that you can fill out at the pump on your phone and upload in all of 25 seconds), tracks all your fillups, then lets you analyze that data in various way by time, MPG, miles, gallons, etc

Really nothing you couldn't do by hand. My dad did the same with those mini spiral notebooks you'd have in grade school in the glove box of each vehicle. He still has them going back to ... I think 1972ish, when he get a '69 Dart with a 340 in it and couldn't believe how fast it sucked fuel (turns out my mom driving had a lot to do with that) and so he started keeping track.

He still does this today with the notebooks. I use fuelly because as a connected IT type person, it's easy and does a nice job organizing historical data and allowing me to compare it to other folks with similar makes & models across a wide swatch of variables. Like I did above, sorting the last hundred or so tanks of gas by flat MPG and arrange descending and take a pretty lil screenshot and post it ... in like 30 seconds.

EDITED to add:

Well, in going back to my original post in this thread, I only care about the Canyonado if it lights a fire under Toyota's ass to make our beloved Taco an even better truck. By improving MPG and power with a diesel option, for instance, or somehow improving the already gold-star standard of the 2.7 with a manual.

 

Nice, I may have to use it sometime. And by use it sometime I mean think about it but procrastinate so much that it never gets done.

I agree, MPG and power with diesel option!

 

Why a diesel Tacoma won't happen. With all the fanfare about Ram and Jeep's EcoDiesel, actual sales volume is too low by Toyota standards:

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2014/06/ecodiesel-engines-popularity-isnt-a-problem-for-ram-and-jeep.html

8-10% is not enough for Toyota to invest in a new powerplant. Hell, regular cabs account for 15% of Taco sales and Toyota is rumored to drop it with the next gen.

 

They don't need to invest in a new powerplant.
The Hilux already gets the 2.5l 2KD-FTV and 3.0l 1KD-FTV (the "D4D" commonly referenced is the fuel injection rail system, not the engine.)

 

^Neither of which will meet US emissions requirements (same reason older, venerable gas engines like the 2JZ will never be used in a new model in the US).

 

They use a variable vane turbo. Part of that design eliminates the need for a wastegate, as the ECU has complete control over the boost levels, without exhausting the overboost to the atmosphere.
Beyond that, they would need to modify the peripheral equipment, primarily the exhaust system, and the programming, but no internal changes would need to be made.

And given the Mazda RX8 was killed because it didn't meed EU emissions standards, Toyota is going to need to move in that direction anyways.
No country is going looser on emissions regulations.

 

1st impression:

I respectfully disagree it will be competition for the Tacoma.

It's a good looking truck that appears to be heavily influenced by the Tacoma, no question.

I think there is a clear GM objective to go after the mid size truck market dominated by Toyota.

GM has specifically designed a vehicle to compete head on with the market leader (Tacoma).

End state: GM will fail for the usual reasons, i.e. quality control, recalls and over complexity in design.

End game: Toyota has something better in the works and GM is reactive, not pro active and is chasing older Toyota standards.

I have watched GM since the early 1970's and have seen their "clean sheet approach" to new products many times, and MANY times they FAIL to deliver.

Believe them if you want.

I will NEVER buy another GM product again, even if, like monkeys typing on typewriters could eventually write the "The Odyssey" (i.e. get lucky through the law of averages), that GM could produce a capable, reliable and economical 4wd platform in the mid truck range.

Perhaps my advice is worth nothing, but my observations of GM span close to fifty years.

Jim

 

And yet the forum will continue to be flooded with people crying about how "Colorado has this and that bells and whistles and dammit, for $30k my Tacoma should have that too."

Regardless of the fact that it doesn't work.

I had my Duramax for 2 weeks before the CD changer started acting funky. Yanked it and replaced it with a Pioneer DVD/Nav.
After 4 months, every now and then, the fuel gauge would drop to below empty like it had no power. The low fuel light still worked, and I've always driven by the odometer anyways.

 

I'm not really sure Tacoma is a place to set the bar for new midsize trucks.
Just from reading what everyone here says.....
10 year old platform
Drive shaft problems
Frame rust
Motor ticking
Motor knocks going up hill under a load
and the biggest one of all....no outdoor temp in the mirror.....

 

That only applies to the 2014

I don't have any frame rust, drive shaft problems, knocking going up hill under load, or motor ticking and I use my truck as a truck; work and play.