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

The most exiting thing about the OPOC-engines are that they will go in massproduction this year.

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

@CGI

A lot of really terrible ideas attract investors. Gates was a very smart guy 25 years ago but he's missed a lot of huge opportunities during the last 15 years.

Re: Chinese mfg. We'll see if this works for China. Energy costs drive this kind of innovation and present energy costs are flat. Very little incentive for Detroit to invest in new ideas when gas prices are down.

Thanks for telling us about the OPOC

@Tom - It's called 'oversimplification'. Simply looking at "horse power" levels of different types of engines from different eras is ignorant of several important things.

I don't mean you're "ignorant" per se, but you chose to ignore these details or unknowing of them.

So what are you saying, relating to the context of the original post? Do smaller engines have to work harder? That's what we were talking about. Please don't let me think you're ignorant.

@Tom - Smaller engines have more power than smaller engines of decades past, but much more is expected of them. Base S10s and Rangers were extremely light compared to the base extra cabs of Today. And as we've seen here, the 4 banger gets nearly identical mpg as the V6. What does that tell you?

It tells me it uses the same amount of fuel to do the same job. Which still has nothing to do with the original post about small engines having to work hard and not last. It's possible to build a 4 cylinder 2.5L 300hp engine that will be more durable than a 5.7L 300hp V8.

The problem here is that it's too small an engine for the size of the truck. Sure, long, long ago (I'm talking late '50s, early '60s) a pickup truck got by just fine with 100-150 horsepower; they were a utility vehicle intended for one purpose and that purpose certainly didn't involve speed or towing heavy loads. You had tractors and medium-/heavy duty trucks for those tasks. However, the '60s muscle car craze triggered the muscle TRUCK craze that has since gone so stupidly crazy they're almost worthless for their original design purpose. In fact, it's because of this that the remaining true mid-sized trucks get used for REAL WORK while the full sized trucks become showpieces priced far too expensively to relegate to everyday utility hauling. If you want to see a full-sized truck doing "real work" today, you have to expect it's being driven by its second owner or was actually purchased FOR the task it does every day hauling heavy trailers around (very few actually carry anything in the bed these days). And honestly, for towing you certainly don't NEED a pickup truck; a chassis-cab with utility tray and gooseneck/fifth-wheel hitch is the more logical choice.

So many of you complain about how the Eco-version of Ram's trucks having no carrying capacity, but maybe--just maybe--they're the ones that actually get used for their original design purpose more frequently as a LIGHT utility vehicle.

@Tom - It doesn't matter if you're talking shovels or engines. The harder you work it, the less it lasts. Why is this even a question?

Roadwhale I agree with most of what you said. However I tend to disagree about your logical choice statement. I'm in construction and drive a diesel F250 every day. Do I tow or haul with the bed everyday? Of course not. I do have a full toolbox. I also use it to get groceries occasionally, ride to the beach, mountains, even church. I'd rather drive it than my wife's car. I have a fifth wheel hitch, but when not using it take the hitch out leaving only the rails. I've pulled a 28ft rv for 10's of thousands of miles. It also serves as my office occasionally. No way would I feel as comfortable driving around a chassis cab flat bed for everything I use my truck for. I guess I could have the flat bed and a car or small truck, but don't really see why it's necessary. BTW, almost every contractor I know(several) does the same thing.

The ONLY way the 2.5 liter makes sense is if they plan on dropping the 8 speed into it next year. That would take it to 21/28 and greatly improve the 0-40 MPH performance.

Other improvements god for another 1MPG city worth of savings that are coming would be "high lift command" and the "start/stop system"

The only other future choice would be for GM get rid of the V6 entirely and install a tweaked Gen III 2.0T instead with 260HP, 295lbs Torque.


Then the motor options would be the Gen III 2.0T and the 2.8 liter Duramax diesel.

It was a reply to this statement made early in the post:"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." And that statement, as a blanket statement, is false whether you're talking shovels or engines. That is, when you're comparing one item to a different one. Which is what he did.

How is an engine with 300 hp working harder than another engine with 300 hp?
Work is a measure of force over time.

Good points Tom.

If one engine made 300 hp at 5,000rpm and the other made it at 7,000rpm you might have a point, the engine is trying harder (reving higher) to do the same work. That is not really the case though.

The argument over the size of the 2.5 is ridiculous.

The Colorado IS the size of the Frontier and Taco. Why do you need to have a larger engine the 200hp is more than necessary to move this vehicle adequately. This engine out performs both the Nissan and Toyota large capacity 4's.

This engine has an oversquare stroke for starters, so it WILL naturally have it's torque band start lower and would be narrower.

Comparing EPA or CAFE FE figures doesn't really translate into day to day FE. Some might get near it but some don't.

Also, again, people are making comparisons with this against a full size. I can see why people don't want mid sizers as most who comment on PUTC view them as a threat to full size trucks.

Remember most drive around in any pickup empty most of the time. The ones that actually use their trucks for work will buy a suitable vehicle.

I don't see any issues with the 2.5 four pot in this vehicle. It will be reliable. Engines of this size used to generally be six cylinders going back 40 years or so.

Here a first drive for you Colorado want to know guys with the Taco and Frontier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbqnSZBvBeA

I was expecting the new Colorado to be a next gen truck that offered great fuel economy in a mid size truck. Instead they market crap like 4G, WIFI, and a 7000 lb towing cap that no one is going to use on a mid sized truck. 4 wheel drive on the LT model is $4000. Say you don't want the LT model, but want 4x4, GM prices 4 wheel drive on the work truck at $5000.

@Tom - I didn't make the statement, but it's true. There's no FREE lunch in physics. When you increase compression or boost, it'll have a negative effect elsewhere.

Commonsense will tell you the bigger engine that chugs along and makes a natural 300 hp without much effort will outlast the small engine forced to make 300 hp, by a wide margin.

And the small engine will need to make about 400 hp to equal the abilities of a big 300 hp engine. Sorry to burst you bubble.

Hmmm....

Physics????

I did have a free lunch with physics. I used to be in charge of our maths and physics at our college. I used to get a free lunch now and then.

What is natural horsepower?? Is that horses under the hood on a treadmill?

Units of measure are very definite. There is no variations. So a V8 100hp is exactly the same as a 4 cylinder 100hp. Also reliability or durability has nothing to do with number of cylinders.

@BAFO - "Natural" as in "Naturally Aspirated". That's your new word for the day.

If you think adding compression or boost doesn't add heat and stress to a small engine already turning way more rpm than a big naturally aspirated engine, that says it all.

And if you think that doesn't play an extensive role in reliability and longevity, I've got some oceanfront property in Nevada for you.

Then if you think a 180 hp Civic engine is equal to a 180 hp Caterpillar diesel, you've outbafoed yourself.

I think what Denvermike is trying to say that a conventional tech (old school) motor that is high revving, pressurized or has high compression will be fatigued or stressed and worn out more quickly than a larger engine without high revs, hi compression or forced air induction.

Generally that is a true statement....back in the 80's

The problem is NONE of the newer motors on the market are old school tech.

They use high strength aluminum, magnesium, hi yield steel, various ores and mixes. Tech like 6 bolt mains, windage trays, oval pistons, cracked rods and numerous other innovations that trickled down from race car/truck tech or large truck tech.

Tighter tolerances, better oiling and heat control add to the longevity as well.

Ford's 3.5 liter eco-boost can typically survive 150k of abuse without failure in 420HP trim. Ford restricts it to ~360HP just so the transmissions survive!

People also confuse HP with torque.

I'd prefer the Gen III (2015 version from the ATS) 272HP 2.0T with its 295lb of torque from 1700-5300RPM over the 3.6 liters 260lb or torque from 4400-5300RPM.

Or put another way...
At 2000RPM the 2.0T liter has 295lbs of torque
At 2000RPM the 3.6 liter has 220lbs of torque

GM eingineering said the unrestricted Gen III 2.0T tops out at 318HP and 350lbs of torque.

So they could retune it for 285HP and 300lbs of torque which should significantly exceed the 3.6 liter's abilities under most condition.

Such a beast should matched with an 8 speed should achieve 20-23 MPG in the city, 27-28 MPG on the highway and a 7-7.5 second 0-60 with 7500lb tow.

To Denvermike's point.

The GM 3.6 liter has the same issue that Ford's 3.5 and RAM's 3.6 have.

Which is they inhale oil past the PCV valve and burn oil leading to premature wear and poor performance.

In this case the engine gets tired and worn starting as soon as 80k.. Install a good catch can and the valves will look at 100k the same as they do without the catch can at 20k.


I'll be installing a high quality catch can on mine if I do purchase one.

The Ford Falcon Ute, is vastly more practical than these., comparable fuel economy, it has 2WD.i doubt they would give them away here
http://liveimages.carsales.com.au/carsales/car/private/cp5533769855960669873.jpg?height=290&aspect=centered&width=440

@Papa Jim--I have driven not only the 2.2 I-4 in my S-10 but a 2003, 2004, and 2007 Malibu Classic with auto and air for over 4 years continuous. Never during those trips which were anywhere from 300 to 500 miles one way were these Malibus or the S-10 lacking for power and turning the air on had little effect on their performance. Maybe your Rangers had that problem but after driving numerous Chevrolets with a 2,2 I never had any issues with lack of acceleration. I just came back from a 300 mile trip in my wife's CRV which never lacked any power with the air on full blast and that was crusing between 75 to 80 miles per hour at 29 mpg. Possibly the Ranger's 4 was old style technology but my experiences have been much different. My wife's 77 Accord was actually just as zippy with the air on than off. Now if you are trying to burn rubber then no I could not do that on most of the 4 cylinders I have driven except that 77 Accord which was light years ahead of the 85 Mercury Lynx I had. The 4 cylinder motors of the 80s and 90s were much less powerful than they are now and the American cars and trucks of that era could not hold a candle to most of the Japanese 4s especially the Honda CVCC which was what the 77 Accord had. I think the 4 in the Colorado will be just fine especially when the 2.2 that I have is more than adequate. If you really want power skip the small block GM V8s and get a Hemi especially the one in the new Challenger Hellcat.

Denvermike, you didn't burst my bubble. I know durability and longevity in an engine is due to design. You inadvertently said it yourself with the civic/caterpillar comparo. Would a smaller 4 cylinder caterpillar have to work harder than a larger VM 3.0?


@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.

Posted by: Lou_BC | Sep 22, 2014 12:08:48 AM

---------------------------------------------------------

And now Lou BC joins in on the name calling, funny how Lou BC loves to cry the blues about all the name calling and crap yet he can't help himself when it comes to him calling names.

Sorry but you can't blame any of this on the Ram fans as it is the GM and Ford fans who are jumping in with the name calling.

Lou BC if you want this board to clean up I suggest you look in the mirror first.

@Jeff S

I wasn't talking about taking "trips." I was talking about daily commuting, stop/go, etc.

Cruising was not a problem for the Fords.

Any small automotive engine will perform better without the drag of an AC compressor or other heavy accessory load. Physics.

"If one engine made 300 hp at 5,000rpm and the other made it at 7,000rpm you might have a point, the engine is trying harder (reving higher) to do the same work. That is not really the case though."

Posted by: K-1500.Suburban | Sep 22, 2014 2:00:36 PM

It all depends on the engine design. A long stroke motor will produce more power down low i.e. Ford 5.4. A short stroke engine needs to rev higher to produce similar HP i.e. Chevy 5.3.

You can't say a Chevy 5.3 is working harder. It's design allows for revs. You rev a 5.4 as high as a Chevy and you loose power.

@Ramadan little horn - name calling? You yourself said that you don't care about vehicles not available in the USA. A lack of knowledge or information is ignorance especially if you chose to "ignore" what is out there.

@Tom - My friend has a 4.3 V6 in his base Sierra that he often tows home project cars as he finds them. He's blown the engine twice since I've known him. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that engine's design, just the wrong application. He tows within the truck's ratings too. Is it possible he'd blown the engine if it was a 5.7 V8? Maybe, but not likely. I don't think there's a modern day engine that's flawed enough for constant failure, if not too much is asked of if. OEMs are asking a lot from smaller engines, thanks to political pressure, CAFE, and the dreaded European influence. I don't know where it'll end, but I'll watch from the sidelines. You may think my V8 is overkill, but we'll see.

When I first found out about the new Colorado/Canyon, I expected the MPG numbers to be much better than my 2001 Tacoma 4 cyl. But for the added cost, I don't think it makes sense for me to get rid of what I've got now. My Tacoma's got 156 K miles and I am able to pull a single-horse trailer and long trailers filled with lumber with no problem.

First off road drive 2015 colorado.

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2015-chevy-colorado-off-road-tested-against-badass-host-1637529702/1637604395/+travis

22 MPG Combined... A WHOMPING 27 Highway?

Anyone else COMPLETELY underwhelmed?

I have a 2005 4x4 Taco extended cab 2.7 4cyl 5spd with 212K on it that gets 21mpg combined.

Im sure the GM wonder twin pretend trucks will put out alot more HP but a 4cyl "truck" too small to haul/push/pull or work much getting figures that arent better than a decade old Taco or a modern light duty full size half ton are downright dismal to anyone with any kind of real standard in performance and value.

Think a turbo diesel with 2 more cylinders will do better?
I very much doubt it and if it does its gotta get at least 7 or 8MPG better to justify the initial cost and the higher cost of fuel.

These pretend trucks only really advantages over current pretend trucks are in ancillary considerations to a truck buyer. Things like technology, safety, style, ride quality and while they will come to gether to make favorable press they still dont deliver on being inexpensive, or efficient.

You know the things that matter in a vehicle that cant work anyway.


@Ramadan little horn - name calling? You yourself said that you don't care about vehicles not available in the USA. A lack of knowledge or information is ignorance especially if you chose to "ignore" what is out there.


Posted by: Lou_BC | Sep 22, 2014 9:28:39 PM

------------------------------------------------------

Lou BC continues to the name calling, to bad PUTC.COM is toothless in their threats about cleaning up this place. Lou BC would be one of the first to be banned with all his name calling crap.


First off road drive 2015 colorado.

http://truckyeah.jalopnik.com/2015-chevy-colorado-off-road-tested-against-badass-host-1637529702/1637604395/+travis

Posted by: HEMI V8 | Sep 22, 2014 11:57:50 PM

-----------------------------------------------------------

That was a powder puff review. Look at those nice smooth trails. For them to call that an off road test is a joke.

@Ramadan Little horn - you said you own a 4x2 - care to tell us how far you'd get on those same trails?

Name Calling?

What name calling?

You use the name of an inanimate object.

This is why GM held out onto the number for 3 days after it already began shipping. I know a lot of people were expecting 30+ mpg. Not so good!

@papa jim--Ok, but I never had any problems with urban driving. The only 4 cylinder that lacked acceleration when entering an interstate or freeway was my 85 Mercury Lynx. My S-10 has enough pickup to enter on a busy interstate and the CRV has about the best acceleration that I have experienced in any of the 4 cylinders that I have owned. Again an 80s or 90s US vehicle for the most part lacked the performance of most Japanese 4 cylinders.

I am glad that GM will bring back the smaller pickup. There are lots of people who only need half a truck. Not everything has to be large and not everyone needs to hall around a ton or pull 7500 lbs. There are many who need to move one lawn mower, 10 sheets of plywood, or 2x4s that don't really want to pay for a 50K Silverado to do weekend chores. That is where this truck comes into play. Most of the times Trucks are empty, it is very rare that you have someone who is really using a full sized truck all of the time. All of the time that the full size truck is empty, it is a waste of space and fuel. There are a lot of guys who need to replace that S-10, older Colorado, or ford ranger from the early 2000s. Now they will have something to buy which will carry them through the next decade or longer.

I expected better 4 cly mpg from the 2.5. I guess with the trucks weight and decent horse power I wanted too much. I guess i'll keep my 2004 Canyon a few more years until GM gets things ironed out, if ever.

I drove a 110 hp I4 medium pickup for 10 years in my youth. Did a lot with it, towing and hauling stuff everywhere. Of course now I drive a full sized V8 355 HP truck... This new mid-sized with it's I4 will sell. Sure the V6 will sell more, but the I4 will hold it's own in the market place and do well enough to stay around for a very long time. And people will love it.



The comments to this entry are closed.