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

wouldn't pay 42000 for a full size let alone a little truck

 

42K in Canada is close to 32K for a truck in the USA given the exchange and the customary markup shafting for bringing the truck up here.

 

^Don't forget the high freight charge. A truck assembled in Canada has a higher freight charge in Canada than in Hawaii.

 

32k is top of the range for a mid size...

 

For decades we were told that shutting down an engine at stop lights & such wore out starters prematurely, cause extra engine wear, & last but not least, wasted gas.

About 10 years ago for shits n giggles I ran a tank of gas in my commuter vehicle where I shut it down at every long stoplight etc. Results: I got worse gas mileage than I normally got running the exact same route every day/week operating normally. Yeah it was only a sample size of 1, but it was enough for me to believe shutting down like this was NOT a fuel saver.

My .02 is this shutting down shit a lot of manufactures are doing (Toyota, Ford, etc), has not so much to do with fuel economy & everything to do with emissions... Thank you U.S. EPA. Just like modern diesels & their DPF technology.... Hurts fuel economy but makes EPA happy because there's less soot & shit they're hot to trot on here in the U.S. Kind of screwy deoending in how you look at it.

Shutting down tech benefits the manufacturers (at least theoretically [more parts sales]) & the EPA (or at least makes them happy). What I don't think it does is benefit owners' wallets.

 

It sure is, but you wouldn't be paying 42K.

The silly thing, in Canada anyways, is that you can buy a nicely equipped full size truck for that price. My wifes 2015 F150 was around that price. It's stupid and GM isn't haggling much on these mini trucks. We, my wife and I, test drove the Colorado and went over some numbers with the dealer. They didn't want to budge at all.

 

emmisions is bullshit anyway. the epa is another power hungry unconstitutional organization... if you think about it, your vehicle would do fine without cats...but with emmisions its illegal.

 

I wouldn't step foot in a gm dealership.

 

Just FYI on modern engines when warmed up, especially those designed for stop and start performance, do not consume more fuel than an engine that ran for the stopped period of time. Here's a quote from some research a student did using an 92 Metro and he still found fuel savings:

"It appears to be true that starting your car consumes less fuel than 10 seconds of idling. In my case it consumes about the same amount of fuel as 7 seconds of idling. However, the additional fuel consumption observed seems almost entirely due to a faster idle speed setting for the first 20 seconds after starting. Any good driver would start moving within 1-2 seconds after starting, which would effectively eliminate the fast idle losses by extracting useful work from the additional fuel being injected. If you can begin extracting useful work from your engine within 1 second after starting the engine then it appears starting the engine consumes fuel equivalent to about 0.2 seconds of idling. This is not accounting battery re-charging after starting, but that appears to have a negligible effect."

Found here:

http://www.iwilltry.org/b/projects/how-many-seconds-of-idling-is-equivalent-to-starting-your-engine/

And more info here:

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/...ide/articles/mm_auto_start_stop_function.html

http://time.com/money/3034212/auto-stop-start-fuel-efficiency-save-gas/

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/engine-stop-start-systems-save-fuel-at-low-cost.html

http://greenactioncentre.ca/living-...its-better-to-idle-your-car-than-shut-it-off/

If BMW, a German company, is exploring this function on all of there fuel sipping models I'm guessing it's not just hot air . Not to mention all the work cited in the Edmunds and Time articles, whose authors I'm sure you could contact to learn more.

 

Yet you want to buy a Nissan .

Trust me, the modern Nissan isn't the company that built the indestructible hard bodies and Z cars of the past. They make some very nice cars but the reliability has taken a huge nose dive.

I'm going to try and find this article I read a while ago. It was written by a Dodge guy trying to dis on Ford right after Ford got there average rate of failure within 100K miles to the same number as Toyota. When he started digging he found out that not only did Ford come up in reliability numbers big time, but Mazda, Nissan, and VW (names that most people think mean quality) had nose dived right off a cliff in the last 20 years.

 

Just watched one sell for over 40k on Barrett Jackson.

 

There are Prius taxi's that have over 300k miles on them. That's got to say something for reliability. We found out about this while researching the Prius the that I purchased for my wife.

 

That would be very interesting.

 

that was the other guy... I wudnt buy a Nissan either...

 

This is one of the most misinformative and misleading posts ever posted on this forum.
1. Variable turbos have one purpose: reduce turbo lag. Turbity of oxygen on direct injection diesel?
2. Shaped intake? This is not 1984. Most diesels are now direct injection only. There is nothing to mix in intake.
3. Again diesel can work with super low level of fuel in the cylinder because mixture does not have to be next to spark plug, in gasoline engine you need enough fuel to air next to spark plug to get ignition and sustain one.
4. Last bit is even more crazy. Nobody is going to shut off engine in non hybrid configuration, because with out engine running you don't have ac, you don't have heat, your power steering does not work, nor your brakes. Car battery is not strong enough to keep running all that and than restart v8.

Where you take your stuff from?

 

So the turbo doesn't adjust the amount of oxygen in the cylinder . You are only looking at one aspect of the turbo, not the whole picture. Quit being narrow minded.

The air is turbid GOING INTO THE CYLINDER lol. I never said anything about mixing in the airflow like on a port injection setup. Turbid air in the cylinder helps defuse the atomized Diesel. It's not just about the shape of the intake, it's about making that air optimal for mixing IN THE CYLINDER . Just ask anyone at a dealer WHY CAI DON'T WORK ON DIESELS LIKE THEY USED TOO. Also an even burn helps with emissions, I guess emissions aren't a big deal on Diesels right now

Blue, the mixture in a good diesel is pretty uniform, it would be next to the spark plug IF that was how a diesel operated. The reason you can get away with so little fuel in a diesel at idle IS BECAUSE YOU WANT IT TO DETONATE ON ITS OWN BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF A PLUG. IF A GASOLINE ENGINE IGNITES THE FUEL ON ITS OWN YOU HAVE A BLOWN MOTOR. HENCE A GAS ENGINE NEEDS TO KEEP ITS AFR AWAY FROM LEAN NUMBERS!!! IN GAS LEAN = BLOWN MOTOR. DIESELS DON'T CARE ABOUT AFR WHEN NOT DRAWING POWER BECAUSE YOU WANT DIESELS TO RUN LEAN BECAUSE IT WON'T HURT THE MOTOR, IT WAS DESIGNED TO RUN LEAN TO SELF IGNITE THE DIESEL

http://www.bmw.com/com/en/insights/...ide/articles/mm_auto_start_stop_function.html

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/products/trucks/f-150/2015-f150/most-capable.pdf

There's two car companies already doing cylinder deactivate on large displacement I4 and V6 engines. It's starting on cars not due to size, but because that's where super high MPG battles are won or lost first. No, it won't work on Diesel, but it would work on the 3.5 L Ecoboost or even the 5.0L Coyote if Ford wanted it too. The battery doesn't have to provide huge amps for a massive start if you have a warm engine . The amount of energy used to start a warm motor can be regenerated in a minute or two by a good alternator designed for that purpose.

Also, ever hear of electronic power steering (on the F150 and Silverado now and well tuned). Heat comes off an engine when it stops for 30 seconds at a light , water has a MASSIVE heat holding capacity. Electronic brake boosters ring a bell? Considering they are the cats meow on Off Road applications to get rid of vacuum lines? Oh and the same goes for A/C. Most car companies are looking at going electric for there A/C systems in the near future. Constant RPM's from an electric motor makes for a longer lasting system. IN SUMMARY THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM CAN BE DESIGNED TO RUN EVERYTHING YOU JUST MENTIONED!

Oh, you know, just a couple of years of running a fleet of trucks. Talking to Diesel and Gas mechanics, sales people, and fleet managers. No big deal .

 

Don't really know why all the whinin' about Chevy reliability, my '98 2500 plow truck never gave me any trouble at all. Traded it in for the Taco and still kind of miss it, but the Taco has a much nicer ride for this old guy. Never could figure out why toyota couldn't give us 2 more inches of space between the rear wheel wells though.

 

Oh, so you would rather they continue giving subsidies, which is a yearly bailout, to oil companies and not actually save thousands of jobs ? The kind that you and I have. We are a socialist democracy. We have social security, public libraries and socialist snow plows to clear our roads. We " hire" the govt. to do things we can't do for our selves......like invade oil rich countries.

Rest assured, without the bailout, we would be looking at 15 year old 2 nd gen a Toyota trucks.GM is doing something new and we benefit.