Is The 2015 Chevy Colorado In Danger Of Becoming A Failed Experiment?

My wifes 5.0 L Ford puts out 380 hp and gets 20 mpg highway, about 18 mpg overall and it just past 1K on the odometer. It'll also beat a hemi off the line in a big way considering how much lighter an F150 is.

We paid 40 K CAD out the door for a 301A package XLT XTR SCREW with the appearance package on it. That's about 32 K in uncle sam money. Oh and our new truck body wont rust. Ever.

The same Tundra package was worth over 50 K here out the door and the dealer wouldn't move much on price. That's the problem with the Tundra. Old truck with a new suit and a premium price tag? No thank you.

 

Yeah the 5.0 rev'd very nicely, i just didnt like the XLT interior, just personal preference, but 18mpg overall is good, i have 2k on the odometer and average 16.5 all around, mostly city driving. Congrats on the Ford...despite my user name i like the new ones.

 

BTW I agree on the new chevy 5.3 L. That engine is a turd for power.

Let's not even get into the Ecoboost low end torque lol. The story is Toyota needed to refresh the Tundra powertrain but instead has left it to wither on the vine.

 

They're still trucks, just light duty trucks.

Granted we get the shaft for payload capacity compared to the foreign counter part.

As for the engines, mini-trucks have always had high revving engines. Even today's fullsize naturally aspirated V8's rev higher than a big block of yore. They are car based engines, just tuned for truck applications.

I do find it funny that people think they need a diesel to be considered a "real" truck. Our 2.5 Ton dumps were gassers they did fine.

The Titan Cummins seems like an awful lot of money to spend if you really don't need it. But that is just me.

 

Toyota should of never got into the fullsize truck game. Should of kept on being Toyota and sold niche vehicles. Could of stopped with the 1st Gen Tundra...for the Toyota fans that wanted a little more than the mini-truck, but didn't want a ginormous American truck.

 

Toyota has always ran rich fuel mapping. Helps to keep the cylinders cooler, and increase the longevity of the engine (Toyota Dependability).

 

..Aaaand Tundra is pretty much Only full size on the market with 4.30 gears.
So empty on the highway you burn fuel just for fun.

This is the difference in Diesel and gas engines.
Diesel can be tuned to go down to some crazy minium fuel levels on injectors. Because diesel does not have to be near sparkplug to ignite all you need is enough fuel to rotate engine. Also at low RPMS there is no throtle body to obstruct air flow.
Hence Diesel will be more efficient in those setups. On the end you can program Diesel to inject as little fuel as possible when idle or on highway empty. V8 Gas you can not do this. It always need enough fuel in big cylinder to be near spark plug (That is where direct injection in gasoline engine comes handy).

 

Ummm....

This. Also that 5.7 L was designed 10 years ago. Things have improved for all manufacturers since then. Are you telling my Toyota couldn't get more power or at least efficiency out of the 5.7 L without sacrificing lifespan? 30% more fuel in the chamber is more than a little excessive.

To me it just screams that Toyota isn't investing any more money into advancing the Tundra. They aren't in the sales race so why try? Too bad, because I think if Toyota hired some more design guys away from the big three they could build a truck that's reliable AND competes with the big three in truck relevant ways.

The rest is just more random Diesel babble.

While your point about Diesels at idle is somewhat correct a Diesel still needs a good fuel mixture to get any sort of power. They aren't as sensitive like gas to AFR's simply because Diesel releases it's energy slower. Modern Diesel have complex intakes, same as gas engines, to achieve optimal burn which slows down incoming air. This is part of the reason guys don't get giant gains anymore from CAI on engines like the Cummins.

The difference in flow in a boosted setup between gas and diesel would be negligible even with the gas engine having a throttle body. There is enough air under pressure in the piping to fill the cylinder and then some. Any advantage the Diesel gains in having more flow before boost kicks in is largely negated by the heavier components.

 

They could get better economy but it would not be the same engine.
You can not bend laws of physics no matter how clever you think you are.
As far as Diesel, I dont even know where you goign with your dribble.
Its a fact that Diesel does only regulate engine speed by adjusting fuel as opposite to gasoline engine.
Diesel fuel does not have to be near anything to ignite inside cylinder.
At idle you only need enough fuel to spin engine, However, you can not go over minimum what injectors can do.
This is why VW TDI has special injectors that allow fuel levels to be dropped to crazy low numbers. So much that engine won't even heat up in winter.

 

Oh boy Blue

You don't regulate the amount of air into a diesel with a throttle valve. That is one hundred percent true. Explain to me though why variable vane turbos and complex air intakes have become all the rage in diesels? It's to increase the effiency by adjusting the physical mixing and amount of air in the cylinder of a diesel.

That's all I said. By using the turbo and intake shape to adjust the amount and turbidity of oxygen entering the cylinder you gain more power for Diesel. Adding turbidity changes the amount of air and impacts how freely the air flows.

Diesel regulates it's RPM using fuel only. That's true and the biggest reason why is because Diesel doesn't get as explosive in lean mixtures. So, yes, like you said a Diesel only needs enough fuel to rotate when at idle. I never disputed that. In a gas engine you only need enough gas to maintain a safe AFR, which is sort of what you said but not exactly. That's why I said you were sort of right. I wasn't saying that diesels aren't more efficient at idle.

You know what's even more efficient at idle? Turning the engine off lol, which looks to be the next big thing that will be in most cars soon enough. Ford has already come out and said all of there fuel efficient models, like the 2.7 L Ecoboost F150, will employ that technology to get slightly better mileage. Which gets better mileage, an engine off or and engine running?

 

I have heard the is the issue with the mileage on the Tundy, no gear options...all the engines are basically the same...the Big 3 can get the mileage numbers they do, since you can option them out with taller gears.

 

You can also option them out with shorter gears and still get better mileage than the Tundra. The rear end is only part of the problem, not the whole problem. That iForce engine isn't efficient by the standards being set by other engines out there. Especially no against the Ford 5.0 L or even against the Dodge Hemi.

The saddest thing is that the Tundra has that nice ratio and yet still isn't any more capable of towing a heavy load. Ask around. An Ecoboost or Hemi will cream an iForce for towing with load any day.

BTW I don't mean to pile on the Tundra, I just wish Toyota would up there game if they want to keep selling them or grow the market at all. It wouldn't be hard or expensive to tweak the engine with some modern features and keep the reliability factor. That would sell Toyota trucks, and selling trucks makes all of the automakers more money.

 

I would never buy a piece of crap that turns off while idling.... imagine...sitting at a redlight, and having to stomp it to get it going. no thanks.

 

Agreed but if you're talking effiency that is the best way to go.

 

I wonder if Ford is looking at the Colorado to see if they want to re-enter the Ranger into the US market. I love my Yota but A Ranger with that 2.7L Ecoboost would be a pretty sweet setup.

 

not for ignition, I feel like having to restart the engine every light would stress it, and bad.... Would you turn your engine off and on every few mins all the time you use it?

 

still wudn't trust it....

 

i just finally had a look at these in person today. i guess they will make a nice little city truck, even the rear bumpers are plastic with that stupid step thing. the front end is really low with that supposedly aerodynamic shit hanging down. the wheel wells are pretty tight, nobody is going to be getting much tire in there, lifted or not. oh and at $42000 CDN the price is insane!