When are we going to get HP numbers on the Gen 3...

Aren't we still waiting on numbers and a torque curve lol.

 

The torque numbers on this Diesel do look very good. That being said 180 HP isn't going to sell this thing to the "average" buyer. A more savvy buyer will go for it, especially if fuel economy and offroading are there thing, but not the average guy. Those numbers tell us nothing about mpg though. We still don't know how the urea system will affect this engine.

 

On average, people who buy pickup trucks are not average buyers. Average buyers buy Camry, Sienna, Civic, Accord or Malibu..
If you buying pickup truck you are more interested than "4 wheels and a shiny Color" 180 HP may not be convincing to few but I bet close to 30 MPG will be.
others know Diesels come with lower HP because they generate Torque at low RPMs. My Golf Tdi was 90 HP and it would outrun majority of cars on the road because all that Torque was super low. Not to mention Tdi was getting 49 MPG constantly.
I hate to admit but despite my hate towards GM cars this is the only one I would consider buying.

 

GM has made it quite clear they are targeting the Colorado at weekend warriors and young buyers who want a more "macho" image than a Camry.

That age group doesn't usually go for low HP engines. I'm not saying the new GM will be slow, torque is what gets things moving, but 181 HP on a truck is disappointing. I was hoping for 210ish.

 

I was hoping for something in the low 200's as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see how it performs.

 

In order to get 210 HP that little engine would have to be putting out over 400 lb-ft torque.
Consider this our 4.0 L in Dual VVTI has only 289 lb-ft running 91 octane. So that 2.8 already is cranking more Torque that V6 4.0. Over 400 lb-ft would be just crazy.

 

Nope:

HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252

So if I plug in peak torque at 2500 rpm and 369 ft*lbs, then devide by 5252, I get the ~180 HP GM is claiming.

However I would of liked to see closer to 300 ft*lbs at 3500 RPM up high as well giving the engine about ~210 HP. Those things combined would of impressed me more. What I see hear is an engine that will pull well at a very narrow RPM band, and given that the Diesel is getting the same 6 speed automatic as the gas, expect the transmission to be shifting like mad to keep in that power band.

A narrow power band is fine on a dump truck with a 15 speed gearbox. With 6 gears, an automatic, and a narrow band this truck could feel "slow" or "off". Which would explain why GM has delayed release almost 6 months, at this point.

 

Also did anyone see that the Colorado is getting an exhaust brake

Prepare for idiots jake braking all over town and blown motors.

 

A lot depends on the way the engine is tuned, size of turbo, etc. While VW's 3.0L diesel is a much different animal, it produces 240 hp @ 3,400 RPM and 406 tq @ 2,000 RPM. I was hoping for something mildly less powerful than that.

 

A jake brake is a type of exhaust brake

 

Why would you or anyone else want less torque at higher RPMs? You could say you want mopped engine too. Thats just silly.
The more torque you generate at lower RPMs the better.
Less wear on engine, less fuel burned, less maintenance, sooner you can engage higher gear. the better pickup and go and pass acceleration, the better towing etc etc.

This is why Trucks get low Torque and that's what engines are designed for. Thats is why anything fast is build to get as much torque as possible at lowest RPMs
Thats why my Golf could take off on 3rd and Accelerated very good on 5th while going up the hill.

 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2015/05...r-driver-information-center-display-and-more/

Putting any exhaust brake on a Colorado is stupid and will lead to blown motors from idiots who like the sound it makes.

 

Diesels tend to fall off a bit before the redline. If the truck kept 369 ft*lbs of torque up to a redline around 3500 RPM it'd be spitting out 250 HP, and that would be an engine I'd drool over.

I agree, low torque is good, but you need the power band to be wide. A 4 banger diesel isn't going to be great at 1500 rpm, so if the power is mainly from 1500 rpm to 2500 rpm that doesn't give a 6 speed automatic a lot of room to play in while making good power. Make sense?

I think you think I'm saying the torque on the Duramax looks terrible. 369 ft*lbs is outstanding and well past what I thought they would bring to market. I just would of liked to see a bit more HP. It would of suggested a wider powerband and smoother drive.

 

That VW engine is V6 and 181 HP and 369 lb-ft is "mildly less powerful" Compare to specs on our V6 ...

 

Around here guys just call exhaust brakes jake brakes. I realize jake brakes are a specific kind of engine brake that seals cylinders.

My point is an exhaust brake on a small truck is pointless other than to cause damage.

 

Sorta...
369 ft-lb is insane number (compare that to our 266 on 87 octane). Diesel engines are very flat in Torque curve especially around the peak. So at 369 lb-ft that Diesel will probably have more torque than its Gasoline counterpart for anything between 0 - 3600 RPM's which is goign to be more than enough to engage 6th and stay on it until you hit maximum speed of 110MPH which all cars in US are set to.
So how much wider you want that to be?
Again I had 4 cyl Golf Tdi and that thing easily went to max on 5th. Never mind it went to max, that thing accelerated on 5th, up the hill with ease.
To get more HP this engine would have to get more cylinders.

 

They will find a way to make a manual override, can't stop the mods...

 

Where did you get that information from?

Vehicles are governed differently. Generally it is set with thought to the tires put on it more than anything else.

 

Guessing close to the Ram, perhaps a little better...since I am guessing the Collie is a bit lighter than the Ram. (too lazy to look up the weights right now tho' )

 

Agree with Blue-T. My bros 2002 Golf TDi 5-speed can ACCELERATE up steep hills in 4th or 5th where my little bros 2003 Accord 5-speed (my old car) has be in 2nd gear. 0-90 mph the Golf walks on the "160" HP Accord. And 55 mpg freeway (6 mpg over 49 rated epa hwy) which my bro just reported on the TDi ain't bad either.