Spied! GMC Canyon Caught Carving Curves

GMCcanyon.us05.KGP II

Photography by KGP Photography

As we get closer to the actual release date for the full-size 2014 Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra — presumably set to come out before the smaller, midsize Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon — it is easy to forget about the little brothers. This is what our spy shooters just sent us, along with a quick note: 

"We've gotten our best look yet at GM's U.S.-spec midsize pickup for 2014.  The prototype, seen here, was caught testing in Michigan and shows some key front fascia changes when compared to Chevrolet's Colorado pickup, which was originally developed for the global markets.  

"The prototype's beefier nose and taller hood definitely look more masculine compared to the smoother lines found on the global Colorado. However, the question remains:  Is this the new look for the full range of the midsize pickup for the U.S. market, or does the prototype's new front and rear styling give us a preview of the 2014 GMC Canyon, which is expected to enter the market alongside the new Chevy Colorado?  

"We've heard reported promises from GM executives, saying that the next-generation Canyon will go further than prior models to separate the GMC offering from its Chevy platform-mate. If the prototype caught here is the GMC Canyon, and the Chevy Colorado retains the styling from the globally available truck we've already seen, then it appears that GM might actually make good on its promise to make the Canyon a distinctive midsize pickup."

Our best guesses have the actual debut of the two midsize trucks at least six to eight months after the release of the full-size duo, but that could change depending on how many plant issues might crop up at the new plant in Wentzville, Mo. Then, not long after the midsize debuts, we expect the heavy-duty trucks to be the main story. This will be a very busy next 18 months for GM's truck program. 

GMCcanyon.us02.KGP II

GMCcanyon.us06.KGP II

 

Comments

@Robert Ryan
Really? Wow. Freedom?

Hmmm,

Just because Toyota was practically the ONLY mid-sized make the haters when on the loose claiming that why buy a mid-sized when a full-sized is more capable...

Now that welfare recipient obama motors is making one that looks like they copied the HiLux, now it is acceptable to have a mid-sized in the market?

Can you haters make up your minds?

I love my mid-sized Tacoma, I do not need the dimensions of a full-size because I enjoy that we have room in the garage to park both comfortable, I enjoy the ease of driving in tight spaces with my mid-sized, lower operating costs and maint. costs of a mid-sized and the FACT Toyota builds solid pickups in this category for many years!

I used to own a compact and it was our main reliable vehicle, try taking cross country trips with one rubbing elbows all of the time!

I prefer the mid-sized, the misses gets her own bucket seat and personal space and plenty of room for gear inside and out in a package that will not be a hassel to drive around with...

Practically the only mid size? In the 2012 mid size shootout there were 6 other trucks.

Without being obnoxious, I too feel GMC should have closed. I don't like that GM took my taxdollars to finance 2 truck lines either. It just isn't necessary as no other company in the world seems to need 2 lines of trucks. Yet GM somehow thinks they need to and had to take my money to do it? Not cool guys. Not cool at all. They should have just made the Chevrolet's nicer like Ford's and Dodge's are now.

Too bad they can't design Toyota reliability and resale value into it...

Why can't they do round wheel openings on the new Silverado like that??

@oxi
The Colorado in Australia is a far better performing ute than the Hilux. The Hilux is now considered "previous" generation. The Colorado isn't a copy of the Hilux. The Hilux was the benchmark in which the new global midsizers used.

The new Hiluxes when they arrive hopefully up the bar in ute performance. I have read that Toyota is working with BMW to develop new diesels. But the Toyota tax will come into play for very ordinary products, though reliable.

Hiluxes are reliable, but in vehicle dynamics they are chalk and cheese in comparison to the Colorado, DMax, Amarok,T6 Ranger and BT50.

I just hope when the Colorado/Canyon is Americanised it doesn't lose its capability like your other mid sizers do.

Also, it appears that Ford and GM stripped the profits out of their Australian arms to the point where our Government was forced to prop them up. So its not just your tax dollars supporting the Big 3. We are paying for your subsidised auto industry.

That's why I laugh at some of the comments on how the US auto industry's money is paying for their overseas arms.

About the whole importation thing. Technically, we can import it, but there is a lot of red tape to get through. Imported vehicles need to meet DOT (safety) and EPA (emissions) standards for their year of production (and carry the certifications to prove it). If they don't, you have to wait 25 years, at which point the vehicle no longer has to comply (essentially gaining antique status). Even then, it can be tricky.

Currently, the typical Euro 5 diesel trucks overseas don't meet US emissions and/or safety standards, as EPA 2010 is significantly stricter than Euro 5 in some areas. This means we would have to wait 25 years for a individual to import one of those engines.

Now Euro 6 standards are much closer and should allow us to see more Euro diesels (as long as the vehicle itself meets DOT standards as well). However, it is worth noting that Euro 6 and EPA 2010 aren't a perfect match. For example, we require NOx to be less than 0.2 g/hp-hr, while Euro VI will require less than 0.3 g/hp-hr NOx.

It's a small difference, but that .1 gram could, stupidly, be enough to keep us from getting a certain engine.

@paul810
Your standards aren't harsher, just different to limit and reduce competition of imports. Your diesel fuel is dirty and will foul our diesel engines.

The US, Europe and even the Japanese have subsidised industry. Why would you guys want to compete fairly?

If your vehicle safety is better why is your road fatalities nearly double ours when we drive similar distances and we have similar vehicle ownership.

So, are you saying US drivers are pathetic and maybe you should have better driver training? Or do you have a third world road system? Or are your vehicles not a safe?

Why is Europe with triple the population density as the US have less pollution from motor vehicles and industry. Their vehicle ownership and distance travelled wouldn't make up that much difference.

Come on, really what you just posted is pure crap.

Let me write that a little differently. First, to clarify, I was speaking about individual importation rules. Like if I wanted to personally import a world market Colorado from, say, Thailand to the U.S..

In the U.S. we call these grey market vehicles and, while rare, they are technically allowed. However, as I mentioned, there are certain rules and regulations to be followed. If the vehicle is newer than 25 years old, it needs to carry EPA and DOT certifications. In many cases, a vehicle might meet one, but not the other.

For example, we have low speed bumper requirements other countries don't have. Therefore, it's impossible to import certain vehicles unless you wait 25 years or you can change the vehicle bumper in some way and get it certified (which is typically a very expensive and difficult process, not feasible for an individual trying to import one car for personal use).

In the reverse case, you might have a rolling body and chassis that meets all our safety requirements, but certain engines don't meet the EPA requirements. Years ago, this could simply be met by, say, adding catalytic converters to some cars.

Since our EPA 2010 is stricter than Euro 5 in some areas (like NOX and Particulates), it makes a lot of grey market imports from Europe impossible.

As I mentioned though, with Euro 6 emissions soon becoming the standard, all markets, grey or otherwise, should be able to easily import more diesels (as long as they don't stupidly miss our EPA 2010 by .1 gram or something like that). Whether or not they will is another matter entirely.

(On a side note, it isn't necessarily the case that diesel fuel in the U.S. is "dirtier" than diesel available elsewhere. Rather, we just tend to formulate our diesel to a different standard. The biggest difference being cetane averages. Diesel formulated for the Euro market has to be at least 51 cetane. In the U.S., we allow down to 40 cetane, with most states selling blends from 43-45 cetane. California being a notable exception, as they have their own blending requirements of 47-55 cetane. Now, just because a fuel has a lower cetane doesn't necessarily make it dirty either, as there are very clean biodiesel blends that are still under 50 cetane.)

@Paul810
I do apologise for my last sentence. But the reality is the US has always pushed for fair trade and globalisation, yet it puts barriers in place to reduce fair competition. Having such insular policy now is impacting the US's ability to be as competitive as it should be.

Your NOx levels are more severe, but your CO2 is higher than Euro standards. But also your EPA unfairly targets diesel also espeically in MPG requirements.

Also the way that NOx is calculated unfairly targets diesel. It is rated on HP. A 3.0 litre diesel engine of 200-240 hp can do the work of a 5.0 to 5.7 litre V8. If that was the measure you will find that diesel is a much cleaner option.

With all of your large capacity engines, which your regulations provide work arounds exist, how can the US seriously claim it is trying to reduce its energy (oil) dependency. It is a farce.

@Paul810
Your allowable sulphur limits are set higher at 15ppm. If we run your diesel long enough it we will have problems. As you stated your standard for diesel is different but so are all your other regulations and you aren't any better off.

I don't think your particulate limits are any higher only your NOx and the EPA regulations regarding diesel engine performance improvements.

I will find the information on your EPA site as I have read it before and read the limits regarding Euro limits. When I can find them again I will post them. You will be surprised on how your emission standards and safety standards are designed to impede importation.

I once found a power point presentation comparing the Euro, US and Japanese standards starting from the late 70s which was also surprising.

In 2016 CAFE, Euro and Japanese standards will pretty much align. Also you stated it would be "stupid" for the Euro standards not to match yours :) I think maybe its the other way around. You guys don't have the leverage you used to.

I also should have put the CO2 standards from Europe is higher in my previous post.

And the US can't change its emission structure quick enough now to match the rest of the world. Its ashame, but you guys are stuck with a lousy emission policy framework.

I do think the route the Europeans took regarding emission control worked out better and cheaper to manage.

From what I've noticed, they do want us to reduce our energy consumption, but they want us to do it in a very specific way....by buying plug-in vehicles. The push towards those types of vehicles is tremendous, moreso than any other technology. Just by buying a plug-in electric car, you can qualify for a $7,000+ tax credit.

The problem though is, at the moment, the technology and infrastructure for electric vehicles just isn't there. Meaning most people won't even consider them. Plus, almost all the electric offerings are small cars, which weren't exactly big resource hogs to begin with.

I mean, if you're actually trying to conserve energy, wouldn't it make more sense to, say, offer a small diesel in a half-ton truck. I mean, even if it doesn't sell in huge numbers, it would still probably sell better than all the plug-in hybrids right now and do more for energy conservation than they are.

@Big AL

While our acceptable sulfur limits for diesel are at 15ppm, in practice, our fuel is typically 7-10ppm, matching most Euro diesel formulations. Only about 6% of diesel sold here isn't within that range.

Now with gasoline, forget it. Our average is 30ppm sulfur, with a maximum of 80ppm. European gasoline has a lot less sulfur, at a maximum 10ppm.

They actually tried lobbying to lower the amount of sulfur in our gasoline a while back, but then gas prices skyrocketed and not another word was spoken. Pretty much political suicide nowadays to talk about anything that would potentially raise the price of gas further.

With that in mind, it's only a matter of time before we start hearing about a push for ultra-low sulfur gasoline. Which I'm sure will come with a significant cost per gallon increase, just like it did with ULSD.

@Paul810
I do think we are a little behind (1 year) the Euro emission standards but they are going to apply the same here.

At the moment I think our lowest octane rating for gas is 91. I dont' know what our sulphur content is in ppm.

I read that NY State oil heaters now require the emission standards the same as your diesel vehicles. I don't what other states will come on line and match their industrial and home oil standards.

As for plug-ins, CNG etc I think its a joke. Bolivia has most of the world's lithium and its governed by what we would consider a relatively radical government. This lithium lies in a dried lake bed (salt pan) about 20km long and several meters deep from what I read. The world will run out of lithium before crude and natural gas.

CNG should replace industrial/commercial and home heating oil. Keep the oil for diesel. I really can't believe some decisions governments make, even ours. As far as moving and storing CNG under several thousand psi will be very expensive and bulky as you can see from the HDs. It seems most of the avenues the US is using are the most expensive alternatives or methods of using different energies.

As for the cost of energy, maybe its about time the US starts to look at how much it really costs and not appease the oil companies/refiners, auto manufacturers etc.

Recently several countries have stopped subsidising hybrid and EV research, so the auto manufacturers stopped their research.

The cost of efficient EVs will be much higher than internal engine vehicles, even if they are mass produced.

Like you said the EPA should put its hand up and say we got it wrong and modify your emission regulations to allow small diesel vehicles. There are now small diesels that are more efficient than comparable hybrids.

The BBC news on the web had an interesting article on the pollution caused by manufacturing and operating hybrids/EVs. It a study was carried out in Great Britan and stated that these vehicles over their lives will be more polluting than gasoline or diesel vehicles.

worth a good look and test drive IF... 250hp, 25mpg city and 4000lb towing.

Also wondering...
2 door comfortable cab with bench front seat?
Big rear window?
Bed storage like ridgeline or rambox?

As far as I see it, they are mid size trucks.. Not compacts... Once they come out I wonder how much smaller, cheaper and more efficient they are compared to the full size counterparts.

I would like to see the Colorado and Canyons have the 1.4 turbo charged EcoTech engine available for the regular and extended cabs. Buick is introducing the Encore this January with the 1.4 EcoTech which is built on the Equinox platform with mpgs of 25 to 33 mpg. This engine is the same one availble in the Chevy Cruze. I think you might see the same diesel that wil be available in the Cruze in the Colorado and the Canyon.

Atleast GM isn't leaving this segment like Ford is.... Smart move by GM staying in this segment. With the Ranger leaving the segment, GM should pick up some solid sales.

@Big Al from Oz I was wondering if there is a towing standard in Australia that all or some manufactures follow regarding calculating tow rating and payload. Basically all of your trucks available have a lot higher payload than our half tons and similar or close enough tow rating while having much better fuel economy. If there is, would they be roughly comparable?

@Big Al from Oz - Good luck to Toyota, but the 'Powerstroke diesels went with a BMW design and that's when things went down hill (fast). The 7.3 Powerstrokes from a year before are legendary.

I won't be buy a Toyota or a diesel anytime soon anyways. Diesels, hybrids, EVs, you can keep all of them. May be they can beat the economy of gasoline engines, but they can't begin to touch their economics.

I'm not fond of GMC. It was simply a way to support China's obsession with Buick and support GM's obsession with losing billions of our taxdollars in Europe to keep Opel afloat. The entire mess has landed on American soil at your local Buick (Opel)- GMC dealer. This truck brand is what GM put in place to prop up other losing operations at our expense and I won't support it.

GMC = Government Motors Company indeed. And not just our government either.

As for Ford and not GM leaving the segment. Both left the segment. GM left the segment in 2012. Ford left in 2011. Both are not selling any mid-sizes currently.

Look at the post: best guess is 6-8 months AFTER the full-size debut. That means maybe a couple years from now you will get one from GM, but who knows what Ford will give you in that same time frame.

I agree with oxi. The haters forget that this thing is not even out yet and is still a good 2 years away. It won't even debut until the 2015 model year. It will have different options than those in the global pickup and it isn’t clear what to expect when the truck finally launches.

@oxi & @Dave--I have been very happy with my two midsize trucks and I have no desire to buy a full size. Easy to park, decent mpgs, and my wife can get in and out of them easily and has no problems driving either one of them. My wife is 5'2" and has a hard time getting in and out of a big vehicle particularily if they are very tall. Another thing she has trouble seeing over long hoods on the bigger vehicles. I am 6'1" so I do not have that problem but I want to have a truck that she can drive comfortably. That is one reason I prefer midsize to compact size vehicles. I hope this truck is not a disappointment because I might consider a Canyon.

Eh. Not my cup of tea. I'd prefer wait for the Chevrolet or wait and see if Ford brings over the Ranger. Hopefully they will.

GMC is a horrible brand. Till the day I die I will consider GM and their namesake truck the sole reason Chevrolet is in the toilet now. The only honorable companies and/or brands underneath the Government Motors banner is Chevrolet Motor Company and Cadillac Motor Company. If they could only free themselves from GM the world would be a better place. Let GM be a Chinese brand. Let Chevrolet-Cadillac be an American brand. I'd invest big dollars into Chevrolet-Cadillac Motor Company on Wallstreet. GM? Not a snowball's chance in hell. Screw them.

The Colorado Canyon twins won't come close to the success of the Taco. Look at the Colorado that's been already available around the globe. It's one ugly truck. Nobody in the US is going to buy something that looks like an Equinox with a Taiwan looking bed. And the interior looks like Mega Cheap 1990's GM. Not gonna happen. I don't care how capable the truck is (although I have serious doubts). The truck needs an entire redesign for the US market and it won't get it. I find it odd that Ford can design such a nice looking Ranger for the rest of the world with such a high class interior and even Toyota. Yet Chevy can't?

The good ol GovernmentMoCo truck is back in action huh? lol... You gotta love Obummer. Him and Joe can't shut up about saving this garbage organization in the debates. I wouldn't piss on a GM"c" truck if it was on fire. Some of the old Chevy's are pretty damn cool but that's where it ends for me. I'll buy a Ford, I'll buy a Dodge, I'll buy a Nissan, I'll buy a Toyota, I'd maybe even buy a Chevrolet... but not this Obama heap.

I'm with Oxi. Go Toyota! The only REAL midsize truck. Fully capable of anything and everything.

GMC = Government Motors Company indeed. And not just our government either.

-That's because they are evil at their core. I'm not talking baby killing evil but more like scumbags of the earth evil. I hate GM for what they did to all of their old companies. Built with hard work, blood and tears no doubt by the originators. GM just turned them into consolidated soulless platforms with a badge. I hate GM for stealing all of our money to pay for their sins. You couldn't hand me a billion dollars to drive anything that said GMC on the grille. A pure reprsentation of corporate America's sellout mentality and everything I am ashamed of as an American.

I too love old school Chevrolet as many others I've seen here mention but not what GM turned them into. This company needs to just go away.

I agree with oxi. The haters forget that this thing is not even out yet and is still a good 2 years away. It won't even debut until the 2015 model year. It will have different options than those in the global pickup and it isn’t clear what to expect when the truck finally launches.

@Dave, this truck is a joke just like the rest of their trucks. Outdated and outgunned within 6 months of their launch. I remember when the Silverado came out and the Sierra. I felt sorry for the GM faithful. Look at how freaking ugly the Silverado was and they both had awful interiors. Nothing but the same old tired thing from GM. Toyota leads this segment. I'd say if Ford entered it with the global Ranger they'd own it. If Dodge comes in with the new Dakota, they'd be not far behind.


GMC = Government Motors Company indeed. And not just our government either.

@Ed, amen to that. GMC has always sucked though. Long before the bailout years. I've never even seen a GMC with a GMC engine. They were always Chevy engines. Small block and big block both. Everyone did grille swaps to get the Chevy grille as far back as I remember.

The only honorable companies and/or brands underneath the Government Motors banner is Chevrolet Motor Company and Cadillac Motor Company. If they could only free themselves from GM the world would be a better place.

-THIS


The good ol GovernmentMoCo truck is back in action huh? lol... You gotta love Obummer. Him and Joe can't shut up about saving this garbage organization in the debates. I wouldn't piss on a GM"c" truck if it was on fire.

-THIS!! Ooohhh. Osama is dead and GovtMoCo is alive... How about you shut up. Osama wouldn't be dead without Bush. GovtMoCo should have died like 3 decades ago.


I too love old school Chevrolet

-Old Chevy trucks and cars kick serious ass! The Only thing worthwhile GM ever had as far as I'm concerned.

By the time this this thing reaches North America, it will already be a several years old already time for another update. The global version debuted in 2011.

@paul850
As far as the 30PPM of Petrol you have mentioned a 800lb Gorilla in the room that exists in both Australia and the US. We both have high sulphur fuels.

I think models that were never imported cannot be covered even by the Grandfather clause. We have it for LHD Motorhomes. Even then people convert them as it is fairly cheap to do so.
I know someone mentioned it would be good to import a European Cabover HDT (they had been in one in Europe and were very impressed)for their large 5ver., but I think they would find it impossible to import one.

@Jeff S
The Cruze should come out in diesel in the US soon.

@Someone
It's taking GM Detroit 2 years to "redevelop" the Colorado. You can see there will be significance difference between our Colorado and yours. Whatever millions they spend on it and they sell them cheaper in NA, then its obvious you guys will probably get an inferior "copy". The same goes for your other mid sizers. The Tacoma has a weaker chassis than the Hilux.

Also the loads and tow weights are worked out by engineers (I hope) that work for Ford/GM etc. Like I was stating your mid sizers are redesigned. It wouldn't surprise me if our chassis's are stronger than your 1/2 ton chassis's. Our suspension and suspension tuning is different. Your pickup suspensions are like our cars and SUVs.

@Denvermike
Ford might have used BMW technology, but did they use BMW engineering. There is a significant difference. I do think that Toyota are better at adapting engineering solutions than Ford and BMW engineering is far superior to Ford.

As I have pointed out DenverMike, you guys have just about reached the pinnacle of gas technology, hence the multitude of gears in your gearboxes. shutters etc. The only way to improve your fuel economy is to make F trucks etc look like Transit vans.

You guys will end up like the British driving Transit traybacks around with a Ford 2 litre Eco Boost:)

@Someone
Here is the Mazda BT50 link. When you open it the pickup shown is the base model. It is getting 32mpg (that's mixed driving). So at least 35mpg on the highway.

I think it's towing capacity is 3 tonnes or 6 600lbs. The trayback (bed) is 6' wide and 8' long.

This isn't a rocket, but its top speed is 108mph. I don't know what its payload is, but they are generally around 3 000lbs.

If you surf through the site I bought the 4x4 GT dual cab version, but I'm only getting between 28-30mpg on the highway at about 70-75mph and some town driving.

Like the US we have families buying these as an SUV alternative. But a lot of businesses buy them for work. We have many different configuration "bolt on" backs for our utes to suit almost any application.

But the reality is in Australia if someone is going to tow a few tons alot you would generally buy a truck and use it and not a trailer. Some "urban" businesses to trailer bobcats etc behind a dump truck (we call them, tippers or tip truck).

http://www.mazda.com.au/vehicles/bt-50#/home

@Big Al from Oz - The Europeans have had the leading edge in diesel emissions tech, but I believe Toyota should start from a clean slate.

I agree gasoline engine technology has about peaked, but I don't think that's a bad thing. Diesel tech (including fuel itself) is still evolving and that's not necessarily a good thing. The lubricity of diesel fuel is going away and that helped give diesels their former longevity and reliability advantage.

Gas engines had to get worse (Malaise era) before they got vastly better. Diesels are currently in their own Malaise era. Let me know when diesels tech has peaked too, and I might come back at that point.

@Denvermike
" Diesels are currently in their own Malaise era. Let me know when diesels tech has peaked too, and I might come back at that point."
If they pushed the same amount of resources they have used towards Petrol engines ,then diesel has a very long way to go. Yes Petrol is pretty maxed out.

@Jeff S
Here is a small GM SUV, it seems quite nice. We will be getting them in Australia with a 1.7 litre diesel, I think it is the same engine as the Cruz will get in the States.

They should use 4.9 litres per 100km or well over 40mpg mixed driving. I would think better than 45mpg highway.

The engine is about 140hp and 225ftlb of torque.

They are apparently going to be realeased in Canada. Go and visit Lou and buy one!

http://www.caradvice.com.au/195276/holden-trax-review/

@Big Al from Oz--Maybe I will visit Lou. Looks like a pretty good vehicle. Maybe sometime we could all meet each other.

28 MPG is what they need I want this size truck with MPG. When these trucks get close to the same mileage as their full size brothers its a tough sell.
I want a midsize truck but I won`t buy it if it`s a pig.

@Jeff S
I'm sorry I reworked the mpg's of the Trax diesel and mixed driving is about 50mpg, So it should get very good highway mpgs.

@DenverMike
Come on, there would be plenty of people in the US that would want a midsize pickup that gets 35mpg and will tow as good as one of your 1/2 ton pickups. I dont' think they would care if it was diesel or gas.

Also your sulphur levels in gas will drop in couple of years and then diesel will look more attractive again.

Not everyone wants a 400hp pickup.

@Robert Ryan,

"If they pushed the same amount of resources they have used towards Petrol engines ,then diesel has a very long way to go. Yes Petrol is pretty maxed out."

I'm not sure who's responsibility it was to push through gasoline engine/fuel emissions technology decades ago and let diesels slip by undetected for too long.

Now it's time for diesels to catch up and I hardly think the U.S. is to blame for this one. Every developed nation is had a hand in diesel's technology being decades behind gasoline.

@Big Al from Oz,

"Come on, there would be plenty of people in the US that would want a midsize pickup that gets 35mpg and will tow as good as one of your 1/2 ton pickups. I dont' think they would care if it was diesel or gas."

I also don't think they care either way. A truck has to perform a task no matter the size, gas or diesel. Part of the task is being cheap to purchase, service, repair and rebuild. Americans are voting with their wallets and I don't think it's much of a conspiracy.

I also don't need 400 HP. I don't think I've owned a pickup over 300 HP and that's almost too much. I'd rather have the mpg's and long engine life over 400+ HP. If I was so concerned, I could alter the R&P ratio and or run a restrictor plate.

I would like to predict with certainty...it will be way overpriced.

@DenverMike
About the lubricity of diesel, the story went around when lead was removed from petrol. Remember how all valves in engines wouldn't last.

Like gas engines there are technologies that are being worked on right now to alleviate those problems.

I read an interesting article on some of the new technology coming out to handle extreme temperatures required to run scram jets at hypersonic speeds. Interesting stuff.

Actually, Lubricity isn't going away for diesel fuel. In fact, in most places it has increased significantly. This is due to biodiesel, as just a small amount of biodiesel provides a huge increase in lubricity (noted as a lower wear scar number).

A while back The Diesel Place did a wear scar test of various additives. They started with a raw ULSD fuel that had no factory additives, which had a wear scar around 600. Any additives that got it down to ~520 was considered adequate, while 460 or better was considered ideal and met all manufacturer's recommendations.

Now just a 2% biodiesel blend (B2) with that raw diesel had a wear scar in the 200 range, better than any other additive they tested and even better than Low Sulfur Diesel (the stuff that came before Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel or ULSD).

I don't know how many states require it now, but back in 2007 there were at least 10 states requiring either B2 or B5. Now it wouldn't surprise me if almost all states run at least a B2 blend, whether required or not. If your state requires B2 or B5 that's all the lubrication your diesel fuel needs, and then some.

Of a Lot of Interest is how many of the Isuzu version they have sold in Thailand alone. Some idea of the number of Global Pickups being sold.
"He said 500,000 examples of the new D-Max have been sold in Thailand alone since production began last September, but a new factory that recently came on-line is helping drive throughput – as is General Motors’ move to its own dedicated factory for Colorado production"

http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/837E097E2D150259CA257A9B0021E5FB

@Big Al from Oz--Americans might be more willing to buy diesels if they were more like the diesels you have in Australia. Diesels have a negative reputation as being dirty, smelly, sluggish, and expensive to work on. My own wife hates them because she says the fumes make her sick. On top of that the GM diesel V-8s from the early 80s to the mid- 80s were junk. To save money GM took a gas 350 V-8 engine and converted it to diesel and made it available in full size cars, midsize cars, half ton trucks, and SUVs. The only passenger diesels that were any good were the Mercedes diesels which would run forever. I agree with you about diesels but they have a lot of negativity from the past to overcome plus the urea tanks to maintain, the higher purchase price, and the higher cost of diesel fuel. These are some real challenges.

As for GM cars they are vastly improved over what they were from a few years ago. I have been looking at new crossovers and cars recently and the Buicks and GMCs are a lot nice finished and better quality than the last time I looked at them 4 years ago. More soft touches on the doors and dash, nicer insides, better handling, and competitively priced. We drove a Buick Enclave and decided it was too big but it was a beautiful vehicle that handled well and the same goes for the LaCross. I drove a GMC Terrain as well and it was just as nice, but my wife preferred the looks of the Buick. Unlike all the doomsayers and GM haters I left impressed by the progress that GM has made over the past 4 years. I also drove the Lexus and Toyota Venza which were good vehicles but the Venza had a cheap interior with lots of hard plastics and this was the all- wheel drive version with leather and the Premium package. We looked at the Kia Sorento and my wife and I were very impressed with the styling and quality for the price. The Sorento in our opinions was a superior vehicle to Toyota. These are just my observations and I have yet to try a Ford Edge which I will try, but if most of the GM products are like the ones I drove then I am sold and this is coming from someone that was negative about GM even though I own an older GM.



The comments to this entry are closed.