2015 Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon I-4 EPA Ratings

2 2015 GMC Canyon rear II

GM announced the fuel economy numbers for both the 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and its fraternal twin GMC Canyon today, and those numbers are about what we expected — good, but not great. In fact, the 2.5-liter inline four-cylinder's ratings are only a little bit better than the Colorado and Canyon's V-6 EPA ratings.

Two-wheel-drive, four-cylinder Colorado/Canyons with a six-speed automatic transmission get an EPA-estimated 20 mpg in the city and 27 mpg on the highway, with a combined rating of 22 mpg. Trucks with a manual transmission, because it’s slightly heavier, will get an EPA-estimated 19/26/22.

Although these numbers don't make the new midsize trucks leaders in their pickup segment (both the Ram 1500 and Toyota Tacoma have configurations that get better city and highway mpgs), they do offer the highest highway fuel economy in the midsize segment (now a class of five). Examining only combined ratings, the GM pickups (depending on their configuration) are rated at 21 or 22 mpg, which is matched or beaten by the half-ton Ram EcoDiesel, any four-cylinder Tacoma, the manual inline-four Frontier and Ram 1500 V-6 HFE with its 3.6-liter Pentastar engine.

The entry-level 2.5-liter (direct injection with continuously variable timing) engine for the Colorado and Canyon is rated at 200 horsepower with 191 pounds-feet of torque (this is the strongest four-cylinder engine in the segment by a wide margin — Toyota hits 159/180 and Nissan 152/171). The GM 2.5-liter will be offered in both extended cab and crew cab models, with both 4x4 and 4x2 drivetrains. The V-6 4x4 gets EPA ratings of 17/ 23, and 4x2 models are 18/26, offering 305 hp and 269 pounds-feet of torque.

Interestingly, the six-speed automatic transmission will offer better fuel economy than the six-speed manual because of its more precise computer-controlled shift points and smarter software. Although the manual gets the same combined rating, it drops 1 mpg in both city and highway ratings.

To read the full press release, click here.

Manufacturer image

 

8 2015-GMC-Canyon-4Cylinder II

 

Comments

I can see this engine getting dropped after the diesel arrives, it doesn't offer much fuel economy over the v6 for the private buyer and fleets buyer looking for efficiency will look to ram or Toyota

I doubt there will be much interest in this four cylinder model as it can only tow 3500 pounds and as heavy as these trucks are it is going to be a dog that you have to rev all the time.

Add in the fact GM had to use 4.10 gear in the rear end this is just not a package that people are going to run to buy.

I don't think they will drop the I-4 they will still offer it on Base trim and the W/T trim but the higher trims they will drop the I-4. The I-4 gives them a competitive price on the lower trim models and for many who don't really need to tow and haul heavy loads. My 99 S-10 weighs close to 4k lbs and is more than adequate with the 2.2 I-4 with a 5 speed manual. I would not drag race my S-10 but the acceleration is adequate and I have hauled rock, pavers, gravel, dirt, mulch, lumber, lawn tractors, and many other things and it had more than enough power considering that the horse power was rated much lower than the new Colorado (122 hp versus 200 hp). Before the S-10 I had an 85 Mitsubishi Mighty Max with a 2.0 I-4 with no more than 100 hp that I built up to haul a ton which with a 4 speed manual had no problems doing so in 14 years of hard use including putting a chain on it to pull tree stumps out with (I had over 200k miles on it when I gave it to my mechanic).

I'm going to wait until I see some "real world" fuel economy testing before I pass judgement on whether or not these trucks would be more frugal to operate than a fuel miser special edition V6 freeway geared 1/2 ton. People seem to forget that these 4cyl engines are making incredible HP numbers for their size and they're naturally aspirated no less. A 200hp 4cyl is not going to get 30+ mpg.

Unfortunately, most vehicles including PU's have been steadily getting heavier and heavier. The aluminum body '15 F-150 is the first PU to globally address the curb weight creep that has been occurring over the last decade.

However, I keep thinking what if GM made these new mid-sizers with the same attention to weight reduction, like using aluminum body panels, as Ford did with the new F-150. Perhaps then, we would finally see these trucks crack the 30 mpg barrier and create more interest in the minds of consumers who desire a slightly smaller footprint truck that gets compact car-like fuel economy.

Where do you get Ford is the first to address weight on their trucks?

Ram has been addressing weight on the Ram trucks through the use of high strength steel and aluminum and designing the V-6 Pentastar engine to be lighter by eliminating exhaust manifolds and reducing the overall size of the engine.

They have also used aluminum in the front suspension to help lighten the truck. The ram has reduced a few hundred pounds off the Ram.

Depending on which cab and bed length you buy with the Ford F150 dictates how much weight you save. Only the crew cab trucks will save the 700 pounds Ford is crowing about, the smaller the cab and bed gets the less weight is saved.

How about we wait and see what the numbers are other weight for the F150 before you start tooting your horn. I doubt it is going to be much better than the Ram in Fuel economy and bet it falls short of the Ecodiesel.

Ford keeps going to smaller and smaller engines, which means those same smaller engines have to work harder and harder to do what a larger engine can do.

I think for the long term Ford took the wrong path.

I think a greater percentage of Colorado buyers will opt for the I-4 compared to Tacoma buyers. With 200 hp it's more powerful than the 5VZ V6 on the prev-gen Tacoma.

All the manufacturers will address weight with the new fuel standards. It does't really matter who is first because eventually all trucks will be lighter and more efficient.

The RAM 1500 TurboDiesel with 8 Speed was a game changer for Pickup Trucks here in the U.S. and despite Ford and GM's attempts to date with new Gas (Petrol) power plants and six speeds auto's, they have fallen short!!! At least GM is partially on the journey to get better MPG with its 2.8 TDI. However, they will need to add the new 8 Speed (8L Series Transmission) to get better MPG than the RAM EcoDiesel. As for Ford, they know that TDI Engines will do the job, but have blinders on when it comes to TDI's in Trucks in the US Market. I guess this also shows the difference between Mr Marchionne and his counter parts at GM and Ford. Europeans, for the most part, tend to go for higher spec products whereas as the GM & Ford bosses take the "just enough to get by" attitude. Bravo RAM for taking the higher tech road and giving this benefit to your customers!!!!!!

Please don't compare an I4 to the Ram ecodeisel, thats a different ball came and a completely different price category. Nobody is going to cross shop a lower model midsize with a Ram ecodiesel.

Really interested what Fords new 2.7 will get. I could see a 26-27 mpg rating. If it does achieve numbers like that I really don't see the point in having a midsized truck. Especially when the V6 4x4 only gets 23 hwy.

Still confused over wanting a diesel? Cost wiil be thousands over V6 and have ANY of you noticed that diesel is 50 cents higher?

Man, I was hyped about the 4 cyl version of the truck until about 3 minutes ago (when I read the article!) 1 mpg better than the v6 engine that produces over 100 more hp and and 60 more torque? It's just not worth it. I thought for sure the swmaller engine would be getting 2 to 3 mpg better than the v6, making it the perfect truck for my needs. This has to be the closest mpg disparity I've ever heard between 2 engines in the same truck. At this point, why even produce the I4, besides to lower the cost of entry? Sure, you get what you pay for, but there are literally no real pros (1mpg better, less spark plugs to buy, cheaper barrier of entry) picking 4 cyl. The manual trans, another reason I was interested in the truck, isn't even offered with the v6. I just don't know you guys.

The thing you guys must consider is this truck still weighs more than the Tacoma on average by as far as I know, a couple hundred pounds, give or take, depending on cab/bed configuration.

I don't know why anyone's surprised. It's too heavy for a 4 cylinder in base trim (2wd extra cab) even when empty. A V6 would suffice for the stripper, especially when it's time to pull a heavy load.

A V8 is what's called for in the full boat 4X4 crew cab. Just a simple and small V8 in the 4.7 to 5.0 range. Otherwise, you're just fooling yourself with no appreciable mpg savings.

The small engine has to work harder mentality is ignorant. If the engine is designed to produce a certain amount of power, it's working as intended. How many 3.5 ecoboost engines have been destroyed by working too hard? In the 70's max power for 5.7l engines was less than 200 hp. Does that mean a 5.7 hemi is having to work too hard? Ford and GM should have 10 speed transmission out soon. I could see 2.7 10 speed F150's approaching 30 mpg easily. Who would buy a small truck w/ less mpg? I do hear these guys saying they would rather have a small truck, and I get that, but I think their numbers a insignificant.

Pickup City EPA Rating Highway EPA Rating Combined Average
Colorado/Canyon 2.5L 2WD Auto 20 MPG 27 MPG 22 MPG
Colorado/Canyon 2.5L 4WD Auto 19 MPG 25 MPG 21 MPG
Colorado/Canyon 2.5L 2WD Manual 19 MPG 26 MPG 22 MPG
Frontier 2.5L 2WD Auto 17 MPG 23 MPG 19 MPG
Tacoma 2.7L 2WD Auto 19 MPG 24 MPG 21 MPG
Tacoma 2.7L 4WD Auto 18 MPG 21 MPG 19 MPG


Capacities
Extended Cab
(6’2” box)
Crew Cab (5’2” box) Crew Cab (6’2” box)
Base curb weight
(lb / kg):
3944 / 1789
(2WD w/ 2.5L)
4037 / 1831
(2WD w/ 2.5L)
4266 / 1935
(2WD w/ 3.6L)
Max. GVWR (lb / kg): 5600 / 2540 6000 / 2721 6000 / 2721
Max. payload (lb / kg): 1450 / 657 1400 / 635 1400 / 635
Max. towing (lb / kg): 6700 / 3039 6700 / 3039 6700 / 3039

Engine size can fool you. To create HP you need fuel and air. If you force air in, then you got to force more fuel in.
If you force more fuel in by direct injection you have get more air in.

It's this volume of fuel and gas mixture that is going to determine gas milage. Not cubic inches.

Direct injection maybe more efficient but if you want to make a 4 banger create 200 hp. Then you got to force in bunch of fuel and air.

1 gallon of gas will create about 15 shafts hp for a hour. Efficiency varies but that's the ball park

crew cab v6 4x4 under 4400lbs

the chevy travers which has same engine with 20+ less hp and weighs 5800lbs is not slow or under powered by any means in awd configuration. maybe its 0-60 isnt what you want but 1400lbs difference and i drove one the other day and it had alot of mid range torque in city driving. yes i dont know the gearing for the final drive. all i know is that the truck which weighs 1400 less in its largest configuration will feel excellent since the heavy traverse also did. 16/24 mpg for the traverse. so you can expect that would be your mpg in the crew 4x4 canyon long bed with the maximum payload. i think these are great options for pickups and you really cant go wrong with one if size in your garage is an issue and you dont want a tacoma

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

I do wonder why they bother offering the I4 but then again car companies have always had the odd desire to offer a small engine that gets similar or worse mpg than a bigger engine in the same application.
The 5.3 in this truck would be a great option. That engine combined with a Raptor like offroad package would be killer.

What bothers me the most about the combined rating of 22 for the I4 is that my 99 ranger 3.0 v6 has gotten me about 21.3 mpg combined since I started tracking it 5 years ago. It's 2wd, extended cab. I understand it is lighter than the new Colorado, but it also has about 60 less hp, 10 less torque rating, and at least 15 year old engine technology. I thought for sure this new truck design would best my old truck mpg wise. Granted, I understand it does on the fwy getting 27 mpg, where my truck is supposed to get 23, but the combined rating is what matters most, and my real world average is the same as this new I4 is theoretically supposed to get. I'll still give the I4 Colorado a look for sure, but I'd be hard pressed to buy it knowing the bigger engine gets the same mpg while producing more power. I'll wait until others start buying the truck first and posting their real world mpg.

Brandon, you are off by literally 1000 lbs on the traverse. I don't know how anyone could make a mistake of that magnitude. You weren't even close. And if you think that traverse is quick (your words were "not slow") you have a fairly pedestrian definition of quick.

4 bangers were barely practical when the current generation of "mid size" was actually compact like the pre 2005 Tacoma, or the s10, and the ranger. Now days an N/A 4cylinder is worthless in anything sold as a "truck". Not sure what GM was thinking when they did this.

I do think a 2.5 will work in the Colorado.

There will be a few people that only want the Colorado to just go shopping in and it sits in the driveway for long periods of time.

The place where my mother lives is full of vehicles that only go out a couple of times a week.

A 2.5 Colorado will even sit at highway speeds.

As for the towing comment, I do think your incorrect. I'd bet less than half of the pickups sold in the US actually ever hook up a trailer of any form behind them.

It's another workable option that will suit a surprising number of customers. How many 2.7 Taco's have been sold.

You guys tend to forget about oxygenated fuel and that's why gas mileage suffers in today's vehicles. If we had the same quality of gasoline we had in the 1960-1970's every vehicle would get better gas mileage.
Oxygenates in fuel simply allow poorer quality fuel to serve at lower combustion temperatures without producing engine knock. Engine efficiency and fuel economy suffers cause of oxygenated fuels.
Anybody remember back in the late 1970, early 80's when the Japanese vehicles introduced "Lean Burn"? They did combat with the introduction of oxygenates in gasoline with a hotter spark.
Lets get back to basics cause everybody is in the same boat cause we all use the same blend of gasoline.
Do you heat your home with natural gas? They pump oxygen in making it less and less concentrated , you pay for the volume so you're paying for air!

Wow! Totally unimpressed. GM needed 30mpg to make the 2.5 a relevant option. It is also the base engine in the new Impala where it gets fewer mpg and has less hp and torque than the 3.5 v6 in my 2008 Impala. In my opinion, the discontinued 3.5 would have been a better base engine in this truck. I know GM mechanics who think the 3.6 v6 is one of their worst engines.

@lou bc
I agree about the 5.3
So far I don't see any reason at all to buy this truck. At least if they made a raptor-style version it would be somewhat desirable to me. Can somebody give me a single reason why this might be better than the f-150 with 2.7 IF the ford gets about the same mpg other than those people that actually want a smaller truck?

4 Bangers should get dramatically better mpg than V6s, in theory anyways.

But when talking trucks, they have to pull up to, and exceeding 2X their own weight.

So a 4 cylinder in a 5,000 lbs (wet weight) base pickup is tuned and geared more aggressively than a V6, in an otherwise identical truck. Get the right tool for the job. We're not talking a base S10 with the manual trans.

@MM
i was wrong, but i did look it up before i posted it and just simply thought it was 5800 instead of 4800.

point was that the traverse drove in steep city hills just fine and it weighed more with less power. the gmc canyon will be fine in every configuration. Have you ever driven a H3T with a 3.7??? they go just fine and its no where near as powerful as current canyon. probably heavier by a few hundred pounds. they drive fine though, you dont need car and driver to explain how slow they are. thats just a joke. reading about it and actually flooring one are 2 different things. maybe you own a traverse and dont like it but that doesnt meant it isnt fine. it might be slow to you but its fine compared to whats on the road. cause last time i checked all the cars out on the road are not new, not even a small percentage of them are all new. a few years old maybe but not 1 month old. I am fixing a colorado right now, this last hour i was touching and had my hands on one. what a piece of crap! if they didnt change them they will break like this one did and seize the drive line up from a un oiled slip yoke bushing in the transfer case. I hope not! they look nice and i would say gm will sell quite a few.

Ok, guys let the old geezer have his two cents.

In local driving, stop/go, parking lots, school zones & fast food joins (suburbia--which is where most Americans live), the 4 cylinder will not out perform the V6 by much if at all.

On the highway, the 4.10 gear will hurt mileage at speeds much over 55 mph. On the Interstate, the 2.5 will be pretty buzzy at speeds over 65 or so.

Four cylinder stick? It costs less--maybe a lot less--in the showroom.

The 2.5 engine and the manual trans will save you thousands on the purchase price. If you live in a warm place where you'll be using the AC a lot during the year, get the V6. The 2.5 will be a dog pulling the AC compressor AND the truck. Do you live in a hilly part of the country? Get the V6. Do you most drive off road--the 2.5 might actually be ok if off road is on the menu.

For the average schmoe driving in suburbia, especially if the AC will be on very much? GET THE V6

Elvis has left the building

@Big Al--I have owned 4 cylinder pickups for almost 30 years now and I can tell you from my experiences that they can do more hauling than most of these guys say. Sure if you want to do wheelies or street race in them then no or if you want to haul a trailer with livestock then no. I had a 1985 Mighty Max 2 wheel drive for 14 years that had a suspension built up to haul a ton and it had no problem hauling a ton even up hills which Kentucky has a lot of hills. If you read my comments above you will see that my Mitsubishi was doing more than the typical suburban family with 2.5 kids and a dog. I didn't have the kids but I had 2 dogs and I hauled more than many who comment on this article. I built a house and hauled 2 x 4's, tile which was all the way up to the top of the bed, paver stones, furnaces, gravel, steel, furniture, appliances, and everything except a whole house. The Mitsubishi had a 4 speed manual transmission and less than 100 horsepower. A 4 cylinder will be more than enough for most people in a midsize truck. If you really want to drag race get one of your high performance utes or one of the many muscle cars like a Mustang, Camaro, and Challenger which will leave most trucks in the dust. As for the 4 x 4 the last time I looked at the 4 x 4 Colorados and Canyons your only option is a V-6 with an automatic. Most of the people commenting negatively on articles about midsize trucks would never consider one anyway so what value is their comment. I myself am not a fan of full size trucks but I do not tell those who own and like them not to buy one--what you buy is your own business. To tell someone what to buy is like telling them who to vote for or where to worship which is none of my business or their business. As I have stated if I really wanted a truck for towing and hauling heavy loads I would skip the full size half tons and go straight to a 3/4 or 1 ton with a diesel which are much more capable than a full size half ton crew cab truck with a short bed. If I wanted something with quick acceleration and speed I would buy a sport bike. As for off road I would not buy an expensive truck for that as well especially if it will get damaged.

@papa jim--Having had many 4 cylinders the only ones that I have had that buzzed on the highway were a Mitsubishi truck and a Mercury Lynx that had 4 speed manuals the rest had no buzzes even at 90 mph which included a 77 Honda Accord Hatchback, 94 Escort LX wagon, 99 Chevy S-10, and a 2013 Honda CRV the only one with an automatic the rest had 5 speed manuals. The engine buzz is due to the 4 speed manuals that did not have the overdrive gear to lower the rpms. The 77 Accord was for years still ahead of most American cars and even at 75 mph it would usually get a solid 40 mpg with no buzz. My 99 S-10 extend cab at 75 gets 27 mpg. Most of today's 4 cylinder engines will not buzz if they have overdrive transmissions.

HAHA nothing funnier then watching Rammed by little horn throwing a fit and getting all worked up cause Ram aint building a midsize.

Not very impressive mpg. If the price is really cheap it may work for some that think they will never tow.

Here we go with Johnny Doe starting the name calling in yet another thread, a confirmed Chevy Fan by the way.

Where did I say Ram needs to jump into the midsize truck wagon?

Ram had a midsize they stopped production because the midsize arena just does not have that big of a customer base to make it worth while.

Ford felt the same and stopped building a midsize as well when they stopped selling the Ranger.

Let GM battle Toyota and Nissan because it will take many years for GM to pay for all the design and tooling it takes to produce a vehicle and with the limited market share in the midsize field I expect it will take at least 10 years for GM to break even on their investment and by then the Colorado and Canyon will be old and GM will have to start the cycle all over again.

I do not see the big incentive to jump into the midsize market.

Why is it that every ad or article you see about the Colorado/Canyon or Silverado/Sierra always put the Chevrolet names first, yet in pictures do nothing but promote the GMC's? GM is such a bully in pushing their GMC-Buick agenda. They only give lip service to Chevrolet outside of the Corvette-Camaro. And even then, if they had their way they'd rename those as GMC's too. I can't stand GM-GMC anymore.

@Tom - You're wrong about the '70s 5.7 V8s (and V8s of the era). Under 200 hp is true, but they were tuned for torque, very early in the rev band. This spelled low hp figures. Remember there is no measurement for hp. It's a calculation based on when and where torque comes on.

'70s cars and trucks were very slow from super econo gears (final drive, ring/pinion) and the gear spread of 3-speed autos with no overdrive.

Today's 4 bangers have more hp than classic V8s, but it's peaky power, as opposed to flat torque curves.

LOL Clueless Rammed by little horn 1500 can't see with his Ram blinders on that the Colorado is a global truck that sell in markets around the world. This US one just uses different front grill/fenders. Rammed by little horn 1500 are you saying its going to take GM ten years to pay for fender and grill moldings? Go smoke a another joint little horn.

@johnny doe - Ramadan Little Horn had said that he doesn't care about knowing about anything outside of the USA. You have to excuse his ignorance.

As you pointed out, the Colorado is a global truck modified to fit USA tastes and regulations.

@Lou_BC I remember him saying that the other day, and I should add dash molding too, even though its a scaled down version of the full sized. The rest of the truck is reworked common GM parts used in the US or around the world. That means lower cost to build, but as you said and I pointed out little horn has no want to learn or need to. He has glued his Ram blinders on solid.

Denvermike, all I said was that they had less than 200 hp. How was that wrong?

Here's interesting links.

It gives the FE, horsepower and torque for 2000 F-150's.

Judging by the weight difference between this and one of these F-150's I do think the Colorado 2.5 litre engine is more than adequate.

It has sufficient torque as well to move the vehicle. You will find that most modern engines are now designed to develop a large flat torque band from low rpm's. This is a real benefit of quad valve twin cam engines with GDI.

Another interesting piece of trivia is GM make a 272hp version of this engine. It's a 2 litre. 272hp could move an aluminium Silverado and replace the V6, it would be a lot more economical than the 2.7 EcoBoost.

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_engines.aspx?year=2000&make=ford&model=f-150&trimid=-1

Here is an article from SAE in relation to the in line 4. It a very good read. Judging by the vehicles it's fitted to it will fit in well with the Colorado. It seems the other vehicles it's fitted to also accept the SIDI 3.6.

http://articles.sae.org/11466/

Here's an interesting link regarding air conditioners in vehicles. The modern air conditioner uses very little energy. The loss of power would be imperceptible to the average driver.

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/airconditioning-can-save-fuel-23618#.VB__5rvn_mI

@big al

Don't be silly.

If you drive a truck that is ALREADY torque constrained, the added load of the AC compressor will be especially obvious.

I remarked about that from the direct experience of owning two five speed 4 cylinder Ford Ranger pickups, an auto and a stick. In each case the added drag from the AC was very notable in any kind of stop/go driving.

Cruising, it made no difference. I have had the same experience with many other 4 cylinder vehicles. It's really a seat of the pants thing but the logic is inescapable.

@JeffS

Neither of my Rangers loved life at speeds much over 60 mph. Especially true for the auto, which had a 4.10 rear gear. I actually dreaded the changing of the seasons hear because driving either of the Rangers was fine until late April when the AC is on full time until November.

As a result, during the warm months I was constantly fiddling with the AC button in stop/go driving.

In contrast, with my V8 Silverado I can't even tell when the compressor is running, regardless of where or what my conditions are.


@Tom - You compared the similar power levels of current 4 bangers to classic V8s. No they don't compare.

Horse power only tells part of the story. Current 4 bangers have more hp than industrial truck diesels, of up to the late '90s. I owned a class 6 International with 180 hp. But guess how much torque it had? Do you think a current 4 banger could have powered it?

I hear a lot of talking about the EcoDiesel, but here are the reasons that it's comparing apples to oranges in this argument...

-EcoDiesel, is a full-size truck, not a mid-size.
-EcoDiesel, is lackluster in towing and horsepower, when compared to everything else in its segment. You get fuel mileage, but sacrifice towing, acceleration, and top end performance.
-EcoDiesel, costs $15k-35k more than the Colorado/Canyon...because it is not a mid-size truck. A 4x2 lower trim Ecodiesel, Costs as much as a fully loaded Colorado Z71 4x4 (Around $35k)
-You're comparing naturally aspirated gasoline engines to a turbocharged diesel.

Let's save the EcoDiesel comparisons for if and when GM rehashes the Silverado/Sierra 1500 4.5L Duramax idea.

As for the Tacoma I-4 and Frontier I-4...they're putting out way less horsepower, and their fuel economy, isn't as great as it's being made out to be here. If Chev's estimates actually translate into real world numbers, then they'll be leading the segment in every category. Even if not, well...let's face it, their I-4, is putting out only 36 hp less than Toyota's V6, and has almost 50 hp on Nissan's I-4.

When it all boils down, on paper, Chevrolet, is changing the mid-size game for the better with these trucks, and forcing Toyota and Nissan to up their game, while upping their game from the previous renditions of this line. Not everyone wants a full-size truck, but not everyone wants a car, minivan, SUV or crossover either.

Mid-size trucks, give people who don't want/need a big truck, the utility that they want, with the maneuverability that they need...at a price point that is a little easier on the wallet. To me that's not a bad thing. There are a lot of full-size truck owners out there, who have more truck than they can handle, and should downgrade to a mid-size. This, is evidenced by their inability to park properly, stay in their lane, and make proper turns. I see it daily, and shake my head.

Why hate on a segment that caters to people who want a truck bed, but are practical enough to know that they can't handle a full-size?

Time for a real Game Changer. The OPOC engine mod EM100 from EcoMotors
is smaller than the RAM 1500 V6 and still it´s delivering 325 hp, 664 lb-ft of torque. Power desity at 1,1 hp/lb . RAM 1500 engine is 485 lbs and EM 100 is just 296 lbs.
A GAME CHANGER in production this fall. In China. Est 40 mpg or better


With a block in CGI

http://www.sme.org/MEMagazine/Article.aspx?id=80394&taxid=1429

OPOC engine? Interesting concept and design. As the complexity of the traditional ICE grows, the OPOC becomes less exotic and more appropriate.

A critical disadvantage is shared by various hybrid types: Clutches control the number of cylinders in use, so at idle the OPOC is only using one set of cylinders. The auxiliary sets of cylinders are cold, and won't achieve optimal operating temps for a few minutes. Adds to pollution and kills potential for better FE.

Still it's all in the application. For taxi's and other kinds of mass transit, the advantages probably outweigh the faults.

Denvermike, you may have reading comprehension problems. I never compared 4 cyl engines to anything. Nor mentioned torque, which I am well aware of vs horsepower. I was referring to the poster mention small engines having to "work harder". Thus a less than 200hp 5.7 vs 400hp 5.7.

papa jim
The most exiting thing about the OPOC-engines are that they will go in massproduction this year. The primarily use is for gensets, off-road mashines and trucks for Zhongding Power

Already next spring the leading automotive actor in China , FAW will produce OPOC-engines for automobiles in large numbers. They are now constructing a factory in Chinsa with a 200 million US Dollar pricetag.

Bill Gate is one of the main investors in EcoMotors. Pity that they couldn´t get more interest from the OEMs in the US.



The comments to this entry are closed.