GM Releases V-6 MPG Numbers for 2015 Chevrolet Colorado/GMC Canyon

2015-Chevrolet-ColoradoZ71-007 II

Available this fall, the new 2015 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon will offer the best fuel economy of any gas V-6 pickup truck sold in the U.S. Initial EPA fuel economy estimates have the new midsize achieving 18 mpg in the city and 26 mpg on the highway in the 4x2 extended-cab configuration, while the 4x4 models will offer a best mpg of 17 city and 24 highway. Combined EPA ratings for both the Colorado and Canyon will be 21 mpg for 4x2 models and 20 mpg for 4x4 models.

These numbers may not look mind-blowing, but remember that these trucks are the first to enter this segment (after many have left) in decades. No V-6 engine will have more horsepower, however, several will offer more torque at a lower rpm. It's worth noting the new pair of midsize pickups will weigh more than 1,000 pounds less, be 12 inches shorter and cost about $10,000 less than their full-size pickup counterparts (depending on configuration). Naturally, we expect more good numbers when we see the four-cylinder power ratings and fuel economy ratings (not to mention the coming baby Duramax in 2016).

According to Automotive News, early ordering for the Chevrolet Colorado is said to be much greater than originally anticipated, with close to 30,000 units ordered by dealerships for the fall debut. GMC Canyon ordering is also ahead of expectations, with more than 10,000 midsize trucks pre-orders to date. Of course, these pre-orders are no guarantee that the small pickups will be a popular seller but, then again, Ram found its dealerships made a strong push to pre-order the new EcoDiesel Ram 1500, which is still one of Ram's best sales success stories, with an average number of days sitting on the lot between 10 and 15.

We'll know more after we drive the Colorado and Canyon later this month. To read the press release, click here.

Manufacturer image




What gas hogs for being midsize pickups.

Might as well just buy the full size and be done with it.

Another huge fail for General Motors.

Great MPG numbers for a midsizer, 5 MPG better then a Tacoma on the highway absolutely fantastic.

How much weight does the new truck save? Makes me wonder if Ford's new aluminum truck is going to pay of in the area of fuel economy.
A one mile/gallon savings compared to the full size ram is really disappointing.
Price would seem to be their only real advantage.
It will have to be the price vs. Size argument that would have to make my decision. And long wheel base is the best solution for towing.

It will be here soon. I wanna know if all those guys crying to get this midsizer will really buy it.

Two less gears then the Ram so that's why its only 1 mpg better, wait until they put the 10 speed in it in a couple years and it will be a lot better.

I don't think the MPG numbers make it worth it if that's someone's only reason for buying this truck.

When compared against GM's 4.3, it's not really that much better.

When compared to Ram's 3.6 Pentastar, the difference is even smaller.

When compared to Ram's Ecodiesel, it gets worse FE than a full sized truck.

A V6 in a midsizer is more equivalent to a V8 in a full sizer. So you should be comparing the MPG of this V6 to a V8 full Sizer. Or compare a V4 Colorado to the V6 in a full sizer.

So not as good fuel economy as the 2015 F150 2.7 EcoBoost or the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel. Hardly a surprise. In fact, I think the Titan 5.0 Cummins will get about the same!

I want to see the MPG numbers for a 4 cyl diesel mid sized truck; gasers in this category are not that much better than a full sized truck.

A diesel mid sized truck will change the light pickup truck landscape forever...

Hope they bring the diesel with the 8 or 10 speed. That will be a game changer

You are absolutely right about that. It's suicide to not to offer small diesel in midsizer from GM. This truck is going to be DOA in my opinion.

Despite the MPG being better than the Nissan and Toyota mid-sizers, it is hardly earth shattering and looks lousy when compared to the RAM1500 EcoDiesel with 8 Speed Auto. Also, the pricing is high when compared to its rivals products. GM's only saving grace may be their upcoming 2.8 Duramax Diesel, but if that engine comes with a premium over the Gas engines, this Truck may end up close to the Full Size models from a price stand point and that would not be good.

theres proof that mid size trucks are worthless

I for one like mid-size trucks. Never had the need for anything full size. In fact today’s mid-size is the same size as what a FULL size truck was in the late 80s and early 90s, so all of you who think having bigger is always better are just full of crap. Give me an older truck any day. And honestly I could care a rat’s butt what numbers these manufacturers are giving in mileage. They’re just numbers. Of the 4 trucks I have owned, none of them ever matched up to those numbers. Some went above and beyond, and some were very close but would be lower. Too many variables to factor in (speed, outside temp., road conditions, type of tires, air flow, upgrades, driver habits, etc.) If the cost of gas and mileage are such a factor then you sissies need to stop driving your trucks and get yourselves a Prius.

The "new" Colorado and Canyon information has been coming out for over three years now. Still unable to touch one. This news is so boring and old since these trucks have been available in so many areas around the world for years now. Like so many we keep reading and waiting for what must be the slowest truck ever introduced into the US market.

There's a reason why the midsize market failed. The mpg's and prices were too close to full size. $39,000 for a semi loaded LT is too much when you can get a heavily discounted Ram or Ford 1/2 ton for the same. When Ford debuts the new 2015 F150 with the 2.7 Ecoboost motor that will get the same mpg as the GM mini's the excitement for the GM's will drop.
Once again GM's behind the rest. No wonder they filed for bankruptcy. Nothings changed.

Not impressed , diesel better be north of 30 highway.

These numbers are right on par of what you would expect for a V6 with a 6 speed tranny. Their is no other technology out their to increase that other then offering a diesel which is what they are going to do with the Duramax. Large cars barley crack 30MPG and many are in the high 20's. your not going to have a heavier less aerodynamic truck get 30MPG with the current technology. You could make it smaller or lighter use aluminum but at an added cost which obviously from the above comments nobody is going to pay more then what the trucks already are.

The Nissan Frontier has a five-speed automatic transmission.

I still can't figure out why the weight savings didn't give a greater return in fuel mileage.

I think 26 mpg with the biggest motor available is pretty fantastic. This truck is going to be available with 3 different motors, remember? 26mpg will be the worst fuel mileage you'll get with this truck.
2.5L will get 28+ easily. The 2.4L in Equinox is rated 32mpg highway FWD/29mpg highway AWD, just for quick comparison.
2.8TD will deliver 30+ I bet.

Wow, a whopping 1 (ONE) mpg better than Rams 1500! Not really big news.

@Ben: the GMs are probably geared pretty low numerically, 3.08 or 3.23 to achieve that. Just adding two gears won't just up the mileage, what the use of the 8 speed does is allow the Ram to have lower starting gears in 1st and 2nd, without needing some super high gears in the differential, such as 4.56. So 3.55 8 speed trucks out pull 3.92 geared 5/6 speed Rams, and still have the lower rpm for empty freeway cruising.

GM already runs their rpm real low with super low geared diffs like 3.08. Rams even pre 8 speed, with 3.55 and 3.21 gears, got good highway mileage. But with the lack of lower (numerically higher) gears in the trans, they were dogs when pulling a trailer, while Ford,GM, and Toyota had numerically higher geared transmissions.

Also, the eight speed transmission differs from the six speed Ram transmission in that it comes with the active air grille shutters. It also brings the trans fluid up to temp quicker for better efficiency.

Between the grill shutters and the trans fluid, and also the better aerodynamics of the Ram, good luck trying to pick up as much mileage just by changing to an eight speed, unless you do some of the same things to the other vehicle.

Back to the drawing board, GM!

The problem is. You can't tow anything bigger than a Hobie 16. And your pretty much confined to hauling trash to the dump and tent camping.

So do we have to wait until the 2018 MY for the 10 speed automatic?

Y'all are a bunch a dummies and missing the big picture here. I understand brand loyalty but come on. Give credit where credit is due. There is a reason to brag about these numbers. To achieve similar FE with a RAM is to either 1) buy the stripped down HFE model which is a basic cab with a tonneau cover, eight speed and special tires or 2) shell out $10000.00 more than a fully loaded colorado/canyon for a Mid level SLT with the Ecodiesel. And the 2.5l 4cyl will get between 28-29 and the 2.8l diesel will BE THE FIRST TO CREST 30 MPG!!!

Great discussions here. A lot of the debate will be settled soon, as Colorado and Canyon start showing up in dealerships and potential customers can test drive the trucks and make up their own minds.

The price spread between midsize and full-size is a big deal for many people -- don't forget that the steep discounts you see on full-size trucks are usually on very focused models, not the well-equipped crew cabs most people buy.

Interesting to note that high-efficiency models like the Ram diesel and F-150 2.7 seem to be aimed primarily at commuters and weekend users. We think a lot of these customers may find a midsize pickup a much more appealing choice -- easier to buy, easier to drive in traffic, and easier to park, with plenty of power and capability when they need it.

Wow, all of a sudden FE is the most significant argument on PUTC. When we talk of the Eco Diesel from Fiat Ram, it's the cost of a vehicle.

So what is the ideal pickup? It seems everyone one here talks sh!t. One day it all about V8 muscle, then the next it's about FE.

I really think some on this site really should wake up to themselves.

1. There are already over 40 000 of these pre-ordered. zvirus made a statement on how poorly these will sell. Hmmm, I do think he's already incorrect.

2. There is mention regarding the 1mpg difference between this and the Pentastar Ram. So, since you guys like talking about speed and performance, which one will be the fastest? What is the weight difference between this and the Fiat Pentastar Ram. Compare like vehicle configurations.

3. These things are a damn sight cheaper than a comparative full size equivalent. So, the $8 000 - $10 000 price difference will buy a lot of gas, remember the vehicle is already 1 mpg in front.


I think you are missing some info.

If you just look at MPG and compare to a fullsize you're missing the big picture.

Comparing apples to apples and listing the pro's for the colorado:

It costs less... like $5-$10k less
It tows more... If you configure the full size with the ring gear that gets the higher MPG the tow rating on the full size drops.
It's faster... The full size trucks are hovering around 9.5 seconds 0-60. The colorado is just under 7.5 second for 0-60

I was trying to find the actual numbers to compare the HFE model gas V6 to the Colorado (payload/towing), and as best I could find the Ram was rated just over 4,000 lbs towing, which matches what Mackintire commented on above. For me I would definitely look towards the Colorado/Canyon for my next purchase. I already have a HD Diesel for towing, and the size and capability would make it a good daily driver. Still looking forward to the 2.8l Duramax. The size difference would be nice for daily driving duties. The comments above are interesting to read since you can look at the responders name and pretty much figure out the opinion. People should lose the biasness and "walk a mile in those shoes" before they complain about it being the worst ever...

I'm a little disappointed in the MPG's I was really hoping for something with a mid 20s average, but it's a good start.

"1. There are already over 40 000 of these pre-ordered. zvirus made a statement on how poorly these will sell. Hmmm, I do think he's already incorrect."

Preordered close to 30000 by dealers not by customers. I am not incorrect yet.
I could be though. Let's wait, but mini diesel is a big mistake. I can understand that GM doesn't want to eat to their full size trucks. The GM goal is just to have a presence in midsizers for now. They will find some customers, who has more use for this truck than for a sedan.

What sticks out the most for me on that chart is the Toyota and Nissan numbers. They both have the lowest engine power yet have the worst fuel economy. I could see if their engines were more powerful versus the competition and had the worst fuel economy.

Also looking at the chart and comparing the numbers, the extra room of the full size trucks looks more appealing to me. If there is not much of a trade off in fuel mileage then I will take the extra space. If this truck was for mainly off road purposes then I would be inclined to go with a midsize, but being used as a oversized sedan or light load carrier then the extra space would be more appealing if the mpg trade off isn't that drastic.

The 2015 Ford F150 with the 2.7 liter eco-boost will be an interesting comparison.

The full size ford will have better fuel economy with 3:73 ring gear.

If the release spec is correct it will tow the same weight as the colorado with 3:73 ring gear.

The F150 will be slightly slower 8 second 0-60

Price will be higher, but who knows what rebates will be offered.

I just priced out a V-6 4x4 Crew Cab long bed WT Colorado with towing equipment and a locking diff, then compared that to a V-6 4x4 Ext Cab Std Bed WT Silverado with towing equipment and a locking diff (same general leg room, same general bed length).

after the 2700 rebate on the Silverado was only a grand more expensive than the Colorado.

Silverado advantages:
More torque
Wider bed
Wider rear seat
Bench up front

Colorado advantages:
More HP
Lower weight
Narrower trail requirements
Slightly cheaper*
Slighter better mpg*
*almost null arguments

So there are advantages to both depending on what it is you need most. With a similar sized trailer, I would expect the Colorado to pull with more confidence on the highway given a lower total weight and more HP. The Colorado would also handle some of the trails I enjoy more comfortably. The bed of the Silverado will carry more camping gear by being wider and the kids will be more comfortable with the extra width.

The midsize pickup truck 'segment' is moribund, that is why GM can do a half-hearted effort and produce the segment best offering.
Toyota Tacoma needs: 1gr-fe+ 4.0 V6 engine-roller follower valvetrain, variable exhaust valve timing. 6 speed automatic
Nissan Frontier: updated VQ40 V6, 7 speed automatic.

GM isn't even offering super tall gearing with the V6, they claim 3.42 axle ratio for 4x2 & 4x4. That means top gear is less than 40mph / 1k revs. So GM can upgrade straight from the 6 speed auto to 10 speed, skipping 8 speed auto. (keep fingers crossed for '17 MY)

The best Ford can do with the 2.7 ecoboost V6 is 19/25, in 4x2 with start/stop & 3.31 axle ratio.


being lighter means the twins will get better FE in town than the half ton trucks do. Highway will be a wash.

I'm a Silverado owner, no plans to change.

@BAFO: "2. There is mention regarding the 1mpg difference between this and the Pentastar Ram. So, since you guys like talking about speed and performance, which one will be the fastest? What is the weight difference between this and the Fiat Pentastar Ram. Compare like vehicle configurations."

These will be a few hundred pounds lighter than the Ram, but the Ram has more gears to keep the engine in the powerband. At this point, nobody can say which is faster.

Ram Big Horn, I am sure you will eat your words but I would not expect anything with any logic from a Ram fan. Oh that's right, Ram does not even offer anything in this segment because they failed at it before.

@Greg Better double check your math

Yeah, one whole MPG in front, with a smaller truck (less space, yeah I know Al, you barely have any people with you most the time)

This is from a smaller truck it should be pushing less air, and less weight.

Am I right, it is like the other 3.6s, it is direct injected, right?

Isn't it next year that Ram is talking about bringing out a direct injected 3.6?

That will be real funny when it gets a 1 mile per gallon raise, then again a full-size truck once again is getting the same mileage is the little trucks that big Al is so crazy about!

@Big Al: usually you're telling us about your Maloo, is if we care about some modern day El Camino truck.

I get a laugh at the people that talk about special tires on the Ram feel efficient truck. It's not like they don't put those fuel efficient tires on this little truck, and you can sure as hell haul a lot more with that Ram then you can with these little turds.

You want to talk about performance, Al? The Ram with a 3.6 has already shown that it beats the Chevrolet 4.3 due to the eight speed transmission. And that Ram will probably keep up just fine with this little truck.

@ Tom Wilkerson of Chevy: so let's do a towing comparo, so we can see what these things get for mileage when towing just say 5000 pounds.

First, the V6 fuel economy numbers are weak.

Second, this "dealer demand" stuff is silly. Dealers always "consense" for large numbers of launch product hoping against hope that GM will allocate them more than their fair share and they can gain advantage with early adopters over their same-brand competition.

In reality GM will build about 2,000 of these the first month and plans a slow ramp-up. There might be one per dealer on the ground by November. The real test will come in six months when their is no rebate or reasonable lease on the Colorado/Canyon while there are planty avaialble and GM is agressively discounting the full size trucks to stem Fords launch of its aluminum bodied F150s, resulting in low or no price spread between mid and full size trucks. Kinda what killed the middies in the first place

So I figure most commenters here could get by without a truck based off statements here.

These newer trucks are getting lower to the ground, lighter, expensive and full of crap that has no business in a truck.

All I personally need for capability personally is a half ton so that is what i will be refering to. The gm trucks and rams are to low, damn road boats. F150 is a bit better but still had to raise a couple inch to get to my usual spots my stock ranger had no issues with. New F150 is now following trend of a lowrider. I find more weight gives more stability at speed on bad gravel roads. Jeeps and small trucks lose there rear end to the side around 80km/h, not to mention pulling weight uphill in rutted out muddy areas such as logs or a trailer.

I think its time to segregate work trucks from the rest of the line. Leave the bumpers high with good ground clearance a motor that will work and last and will pull. Fuel economy is nice but not at the expense of modifying the truck to be used as a truck from 10-15 years prior that did the job.

I want Austrailia's toyota landcruiser trucks in Canada, those are trucks. Box, flatdeck, utility bed, snorkel, crew cabs a diesel. They seem perfect. But i guess most people who buy trucks want cars so manufactures are turning them into cars with beds. So keep crying about fuel economy and trucks with will keep having more things to break like electric shutters on grill for more cost.

I just don't see why many people would buy this truck. Price is hardly an advantage and may even be a disadvantage for the colorado. You can buy a pretty well-equipped f-150 or ram right now for 30,000 after discounts. MPG is the only real advantage of this truck, and it doesn't look like it's all that great. If the colorado was realistically $5,000 less than a full-size after rebates then I'd actually consider buying one IF I didn't need the capacity of a full-size.

^ LOL!

So this gets only 1mpg more then my 2011 Canyon? I knew it was not going to be good when they announced they were using the same OLD engine they have been using in the Traverse for the last 6 years. They need a new V6 as I don't want a stinkin diesel.

That's awesome Dave.

Except that's like comparing 1/2 ton to a 1 ton.

New colorado is not anywhere near the size of the 2008 colorado. More like 1/3rd more capable and 6" wider.

The thing that I find annoying is that guys hop all over the place with their comparisons. MPG best this, tow more there, bla bla bla. It is all smoke an mirrors to push their own brand agenda's.
I suspect that these trucks will have similar tow/haul characteristics as the competition's smaller trucks.

Nissan Frontier 4x4 crew ratings:
automatic - cargo 1,385 lb. tow 6,100
manual - cargo 1,251 lb.

Ram Quad Cab 4x4 5.7 box =
V8 - cargo 1,485 lbs. tow 8,600
V6 - cargo 1,705 lbs. tow 4,200

Ram Crew Cab 4x4 5.7 box =
Diesel Laramie - cargo 881 lbs. tow - 7,400
Diesel tradesman - cargo 1,224 tow 7,750
5.7 Tradesmen - 1,460 lb. tow 8,600

If we look at the Ram pentastar:
Tradesman 4x4 crew
- cargo 1,686
- tow 4,200.

If we confine the comparison to V6 gasers, the Ram can carry 301 lb more but tow 1,900 lb less.

Not everyone wants or needs a V8 powered full sized truck.

Each truck has their place in the overall market scheme. If one looks at the data these smaller trucks overlap with larger trucks in tow and haul specs with a marginal mpg benefit.

I do feel that GM made a mistake by not offering a diesel the first year out for the Colorado/Canyon.

Colorado is the perfect camping companion with an available 4G LTE Wi-Fi connection.

2015 Chevy Colorado Quad Cab 4x4 6.0 box =
V6 - cargo 1,400 lbs. tow 6,900

I towed 18,000 with my pentastar no problem.

The comments to this entry are closed.