Diesel Place banner

Thoughts on the new 2.8 Duramax?

40K views 90 replies 27 participants last post by  willydmax 
#1 ·
GM announced the 2.8L for the Colorado/Canyon a few weeks ago, rated at 181 hp, 369 ft-lb and it will have an exhaust brake. The fuel economy ratings won't be out for a while, but it will have the six speed auto.

I am glad to see someone finally put a modern diesel in a mid-size truck. I am a bit concerned with the power output though.
The power rating is a bit low compared to other 2.8L diesels that have been shown. Nissan has shown a Frontier with a 2.8L Cummins rated at 210 hp, but with an equal torque rating. The latest VM 2.8 is rated at about 200 hp. GM should have cranked it up a bit more and hopefully that will happen soon.

It will be interesting to see the fuel economy rating. Comparing the gasoline versions, the Ram 3.6/8spd is 16/23, 3.0 diesel is 19/27, and the Colorado is 17/24. The fuel economy for the 2.8 Duramax will be higher than the Ram 3.0L, but I don't expect it to be rated in the mid 30s.

Duramax Seeks Tow-Hold Among Compact Trucks | Vehicles & Technology content from WardsAuto

With that said, the new Colorado is impressive and adding a diesel will be sweet. Hopefully we will be able to take care of the power via EFI Live.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I like what I'm reading so far. I am curious what the fuel mileage will be. I believe the V6 is in the mid-20's so upper 20s to low 30s would be impressive. The tq is close to the tq on the 5.3s so this little guy should pull like a beast...albeit a mid-sized beast!!!

-Mark
 
#3 · (Edited)
MPG's and the cost to upgrade to diesel will make or break the Colorado/Canyon twins. Just my opinion but I feel that GM has been promoting the future diesel really hard - ever since the Col/Can was first introduced. I think this has created a fairly large pool of potential Col/Can buyers who are waiting for the diesel. I am one of them.

If it doesn't hit 30 MPG or higher and/or if the cost to upgrade from the V-6 is more than $3K to $4K then sales are going to fall flat soon after the diesel is introduced. A mid-sized truck with an I-4 diesel HAS to get better mileage than a full size Ram with a V-6 diesel. A mid-sized truck also HAS to sell for less than a comparably equipped half ton.

Now that Ford has chopped the price of the F150 by $7K to $10K it's a fair guess that GM will follow suit with it's 1500 models. That could put a crimp in the Col/Can sales - especially a fully tricked out version with a diesel option.

As an aside, I was hoping for the 8-speed tranny and wonder if it may be available in the 2017 model year.
 
#5 ·
I seriously doubt you will see 30 mpg. My S-10 fuel mileage compared to 1/2 ton full sized trucks was always disappointing. I know that's comparing gas to gas, but I just don't see a diesel Colorado being that much more efficient over the full size.

Still, if it got an honest 25 mpg, (not something measured while going down a steep grade with a 50 mph wind at your back) I'd be interested.
 
#6 ·
I seriously doubt you will see 30 mpg. My S-10 fuel mileage compared to 1/2 ton full sized trucks was always disappointing. I know that's comparing gas to gas, but I just don't see a diesel Colorado being that much more efficient over the full size.

Still, if it got an honest 25 mpg, (not something measured while going down a steep grade with a 50 mph wind at your back) I'd be interested.
The Dodge's with Ecodiesel are getting 28+ and that's in a fullsize truck that will weigh at least 1000 lbs more than the Colorado. 31-32 should be attainable.
 
#8 ·
The Ram diesel is rated at 28 highway but they have a trim level offered that with it's bed cover and some other body aerodynamic parts bumps the highway MPG's up to 29. So if you want to get as close to an apples-to-apples comparison with these mid-sized vs full sized trucks, go with the 28 highway figure for the Ram.

There are quite a few reports of actual highway mileage being higher than the rated 28.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pinne65
#10 ·
After reading specs, I'm left completely underwhelmed. The diesel is only rated at 181 HP, although the torque of 362 fp isn't bad. On the other hand, the venerable old but well tested V6 is rated at 305 hp and 269 fp.

This leaves it with two things going against it: it's newness and it's rather anemic hp rating. Even with my tendency to shy away from new and unproven things, I might consider it if the HP were up in the 275 range. Looks like if I do decide to downsize, I'll be going back to gas. But I'd like to drive one before making my mind up for certain.
 
#11 ·
After reading specs, I'm left completely underwhelmed. The diesel is only rated at 181 HP, although the torque of 362 fp isn't bad. On the other hand, the venerable old but well tested V6 is rated at 305 hp and 269 fp.

This leaves it with two things going against it: it's newness and it's rather anemic hp rating. Even with my tendency to shy away from new and unproven things, I might consider it if the HP were up in the 275 range. Looks like if I do decide to downsize, I'll be going back to gas. But I'd like to drive one before making my mind up for certain.
Here's my rub with GM on the V6. Why did they go with the 3.6, when they have 4.3 already? The new 4.3 is 'only' 285 hp, but kills the 3.6 in the torque department at 305, which is what a truck needs. I hoped the 2.8 would be at least be close to the 3.0 Dodge at 240 and 420. 220 hp and 400 tq would have made for a quick Colorado.
 
#14 ·
Well the 2.8 is going to be a $3700 option over the 3.6. This will put the Colorado right at 40k or more, with next to no rebates available yet. You can get a crew cab Silverado with the 5.3 for around $35000. The 5.3 has 355 and 383 ft lb of torque and can tow up to 12,000 and get over 20 mpg. A Colorado is smaller, can only seat 5 no matter the configuration, tows almost 5000lbs less and costs pretty much the same, so other then parking, where does the Colorado have the advantage?
 
#20 ·
That's been my dilemma with the Colorado. I am recognizing that I can get by with a lot less truck than my current 2500. I know that when it comes time to buy the next one, I am not very willing to fork over the huge amounts of cash needed for a full size diesel. I like the idea of the smaller size Colorado and I like the cheaper price (as compared to a 2500). But if a diesel Colorado will get outperformed by a gas 1500 and if the bigger truck is cheaper it will be hard to justify the smaller size truck.

There is even a chance that a V6 Colorado could do what I need but I need the diesel to be out for a while to be able to make that determination.
 
#21 ·
Disappointing to see that the diesel is only going to be available in a crew cab and the not extended model. Ext. cab would be a good commuter.
 
#22 · (Edited)
I'm not too sure about it not being available in the extended model. I priced one out on the GM site last week and it was there. I just went back and now the diesel isn't showing up for either model. :confuzeld

If I did opt to get one, it would not be a four door, so if it's not available in the extended cab, I probably won't order a truck at all. Maybe I'll look at a Cruz. :HiHi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: turbonator
#23 ·
I sat in one of the new Canyons with the Duramax at the fair just a couple weeks ago, I was not impressed and as far as driving, I can't even drive it, too small for me so I guess no go on either count.
 
#26 ·
You are taller than I am at just 6'. I sat in the back seat as my daughter drove one. I wouldn't want to travel cross country in the back, but it was comfortable just the same.

I believe the new colorado is far superior (except for the lack of a V8) to the older version. Hopefully the diesel will work out. I am interested in hearing what people think of the diesel option...
 
#29 · (Edited)
^^^ then why was my head firmly planted against the headliner in the 1500 with the seat as low as it goes? My 2005 doesn't do that... And I was referencing the GMC Canyon crew cab.. not my truck....

And to counter your argument... they are NOT the same size on the inside... per gmfleet.com.

and another addition... that site appears to be spotty on performance... so in comparing my 2005 to both a 2015 1500 and a 2500 and the Canyon... I prefer mine as far as room, but neither the 1500 nor the canyon were impressive enough to be worth paying 35-50K on them.
 
#33 ·
#36 ·
I honestly have no issue with the price, would I like to have it cheaper, yeah who wouldn't, but considering I paid about $42k for my LB7, 14 trouble free years ago the price of the Colorado is not that unreasonable.
I would keep the LB7 longer, but driving 100 miles a day at 15Mpg is killing me. Additionally I think is time to upgrade, this new Colorado is SWEETttttttt....
 
#37 ·
My only concern, which may be unfounded, is the lack of differentiation from the v6 option. Unless it gets killer mileage the v6 already has decent mileage and far more hp at highway speeds.

If you tow a lot in stop and go traffic perhaps the torque increase with the diesel will help, but I would think it would be somewhat underpowered for passing at highway speed.

It's also a little bit of any oxy-moron to say the primary use for the mid sized truck would be towing. Sure, it would work, but overall size of a half-ton is not much more, likely costs less, tows more, and probably gets pretty close on mileage.

I think it would be "neat", but not sure it stands out as a great new option. Now if it turns out to get 30+ mpg, maybe I'll eat my words, but probably still have similar concerns about capability... :)
 
#38 ·
There are so many landscapers, handy-men, painters, etc. running around pulling little single axle trailers with maybe 2-3 thousand pounds total weight and they are doing it with a half-ton truck rated to tow 10K+ pounds. No oxy-moron by any stretch of the imagination to say that their trucks primary use is towing their trailer everyday, and a Colorado would perform that task admirably and at a lower cost. I am so sick of everybody saying well for almost the same price you can get a half-ton. Who cares?!?! If you don't need it, why would you buy it? Contrary to the American belief, bigger is not always better, or needed for that matter.
 
#40 ·
The tow ratings between the V6 (7,000#) and the 2.8 diesel (7,700#) is not that different however I would expect that the extra 100 lb/ft of torque available on the 2.8 would make for a better overall towing package. This would not make much difference if towing in the lower weight range of say - under 3,500 lbs. But I think you'd see and feel a big difference between the V6 and the 2.8 diesel once you start to crowd the tow limits above 5,500 or 6,000 pounds.

The 2.8 diesels are going to be selling at a premium for at least the first six months - maybe more depending on demand. I doubt that I'll be in the market for a truck change for another year or two so I'm going to play wait-and-see to decide between the Canyon V6, 2.8 or another full sized truck. Price will play a major factor in what I choose although I am liking the thought of a smaller, more maneuverable truck. I love my DMax 2500 but I no longer do long distance heavy tows. I carry a fair amount of weight in tools and frequent materials so I am leaning towards the torque of the 2.8 diesel over the V6, even with the $3700 premium on price. The kicker will be the cost of a heavily rebated half-ton with a 5.3 in comparison to either of the Canyon choices.
 
#41 · (Edited)
But I think you'd see and feel a big difference between the V6 and the 2.8 diesel once you start to crowd the tow limits above 5,500 or 6,000 pounds.
That's a good point. It will likely be a good bit better at getting those loads rolling. It'll be interesting to see how the fuel mileage of the diesel is affected by that. Even if it ends up with a 30ish mpg rating on the highway, as we saw with the Ford EcoBoost, once you crank them up to get a load moving, the mileage tends to drop significantly. Of course, this applies to the v6 as well, but I'm just curious whether the drop will be more or less significant with the diesel. Hopefully less.

I carry a fair amount of weight in tools and frequent materials so I am leaning towards the torque of the 2.8 diesel over the V6, even with the $3700 premium on price. The kicker will be the cost of a heavily rebated half-ton with a 5.3 in comparison to either of the Canyon choices.
What kind of commute do you usually have? The diesel would no doubt get your higher payload moving better, but if you cruise along the interstate for 15-20 miles each way, it might be a bit of a wash in terms of trade off. If you tend to drive a lot in town, stopping at the hardware store, at client sites, etc, then surely it'll be nice to get the truck rolling quicker each time.


Our situation is a tad different. We use the dually for pulling the RV and other heavier towing duties, but wanted a "smaller" truck for my girlfriend so we could still get some work out of it, and especially to be able to take out in the woods for hunting season. The dually, as you can probably imagine, doesn't work to well as a woods trail truck... :)

Vickie was leaning toward a half-ton anyways, because she felt "safer" in the bigger truck compared to the smaller one having been rear ended while in passenger cars a couple times, but I was trying to push her toward the idea of a Colorado. They are nice. My uncle had one of the earlier ones, and seemed to like it. But for the life of me, I couldn't find a single one that was even in the ballpark pricing of a similarly equipped Silverado. A double cab short bed half ton is only about a foot longer than a crew cab Colorado, so I'm not sure how much more maneuverable one actually is. I suppose they may not be as wide either, which may help with the turning radius.

I personally think it would be a great platform for a plug-in electric hybrid with a diesel generator. The low RPM of the small DMax would allow for optimal operating RPM with plenty of torque to turn a high output generator to power the truck. Tons of torque from the electric motors, saving fuel at the pumps, and plenty of range with the onboard generator. Like this: VIA Motors | Extended Range Electric Powertrain Trucks/Vans They were using the 4.3 v6 for some of them. I don't know why this idea hasn't taken off, or perhaps things are happening behind the scenes. 100mpg and peak torque on demand... :thumb:
 
#43 ·
So in my case, I drive a minimal of 1200 miles a month, mostly highway, and tow a 5800lbs Boat at least 2 or 3 times a week 10 miles each way to the marina, but two or three times a year I do tow it 50 or 75 miles to the keys. Currently I have a Silverado Duramax it tows the boat like nothing, but it only does 15mpg empty, about 12 towing the boat.

Regardles I am trading in the Silverado, So if I can get the Colorado to do close to 30Mpg regularly that is a big saving for me, in comparisong to either a new Silverado Duramax (additional $15 to $20k to buy) or a gas Silverado at similar price to the Colorado but does 16mpg.

I am not about getting more for the money, I am about getting what I need for less money.
 
#44 ·
Currently I have a Silverado Duramax it tows the boat like nothing, but it only does 15mpg empty, about 12 towing the boat...
Unless you have a dually, something may be wrong with your truck. Or you need to lighten up on the pedal, or maybe turn down the tune a bit. An emissions free 2500 should easily be in the 18-20mpg range on the highway and 15-16mpg towing a lighter load like that.

... or a gas Silverado at similar price to the Colorado but does 16mpg...
16mpg? When was the last time you checked the specs on the half-ton gas engines? :confuzeld There are far more options than the 6.0L you may be referring to. Even the 5.3L v8 which has almost double the HP and even more TQ than the 2.8L Dmax is rated at 24mpg highway. We don't even know what the 2.8L will be rated at yet. Hopes and dreams are for something around 30mpg highway, but that doesn't mean it'll deliver anywhere near 30mpg when towing a 5,800lbs boat, I can guarantee that!

Also consider that the v6 Colorado may be more than enough to haul the boat as well, and it would save you about $3k over the Dmax option even on a brand new 2016. Fuel savings would take a few years (at least) to return $3k to your pocket.

And finally, while its not quite apples to apples, a 2016 Dmax Colorado will definitely be more spendy than a still new 2015 v6 Colorado or v6/v8 half-ton sitting on the lot. We are probably talking like $10k+ difference in those cases with the year end rebates, and any fuel savings the new Dmax might get would surely take more than a decade to come back to you on something like that...
 
#45 ·
Yeah you are talking marketing MPG's I am dealing with real life numbers. 15Mpg is what I see, there is no tune at this time, and I drive very moderately, only thing is the truck does have 33in tires.
Most everyone with the 6cyl Colorado are seen under 20Mpg average, so I don't know how you can say a half-ton can do better during real life everyday driving, besides comparing the Colorado to half-ton is irrelevant to me because I don't want a half-ton truck.
I do keep my cars for a long time, 14 years the current Dmax, so the simplicity and durability of a Diesel appeals to me.
Not trying to convince anyone nor justify my decision, just sharing my opinion.
 
#48 ·
Below is a YouTube video of a new Colorado with the 2.8 pulling a car trailer with a Z06 Vette, a little under 6k pounds. The guy performed a dead stop to 30 MPH with the trailer in under 4 seconds, and squealed the tires when he took off. I was impressed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uu22AS5Lhj8
 
#49 ·
Lil Dmax

I just watched that video last night along with a couple of the others. I was impressed with the tow/haul of the truck. Would like to see how the down hill works with the Exhaust brake. I was surfing the net today spacing out a vehicle and it showed the local dealer had one. So, after work, stopped by to check it out. Turns out, as you guessed, it is still being shipped/enroute. So I was not able to get a look at the fuel economy numbers. I too am anxious to see what the numbers are. Since I am in the market later this year to buy this or the new 3500HD Dmax. Gotta see all the spec on both before I pull the trigger on the price. Either way for either vehicle it's going to be a chunk of change! 💸💸💸.
Patiently waiting! :saluteusa::chevy:
 
#51 ·
I just watched that video last night along with a couple of the others. I was impressed with the tow/haul of the truck. Would like to see how the down hill works with the Exhaust brake. I was surfing the net today spacing out a vehicle and it showed the local dealer had one. So, after work, stopped by to check it out. Turns out, as you guessed, it is still being shipped/enroute. So I was not able to get a look at the fuel economy numbers. I too am anxious to see what the numbers are. Since I am in the market later this year to buy this or the new 3500HD Dmax. Gotta see all the spec on both before I pull the trigger on the price. Either way for either vehicle it's going to be a chunk of change! 💸💸💸.
Patiently waiting! :saluteusa::chevy:
Am I missing something?? You are trying to decide between a 1/4 ton and a 1 ton?!?!
 
#52 ·
Lil Dmax

No your not missing anything. It going to be one or the other, or both! I need a commuter vehicle with good mileage, and a heavy duty hauler. But just waiting to see specs on the new HD and we'll see. I like them both. Great looking trucks. Might have to add on to the garage. Duhuh!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top