Chevrolet Silverado Diesel Gets 33mpg Highway

This is awesome and should spark interest for those that pull a boat or RV. Way to go GM!  

13 minutes ago, dfelt said:

This is awesome and should spark interest for those that pull a boat or RV. Way to go GM!  

No spark needed for these trucks

27 combined sounds awesome, even if you don’t tow; MPG & longevity. A 1500 3.0TD CC would be my top choice by far.

Those numbers are simply amazing for a full-size truck. Hell, those would be great for a mid-size truck. 

There haven't been test for this yet, have there? I hope it isn't as slow as the Ram. I don't think it would be as it's more powerful on a much lighter truck. If it's a 15.5 second 1/4 mile truck(or better), that would be freakin' great. 16.0 is about the bare minimum, imo. 

So when will GM put this diesel in the Colorado/Canyon twins?

14 minutes ago, riviera74 said:

So when will GM put this diesel in the Colorado/Canyon twins?

Probably never. It is likely too long to be mounded in there.  I don't see how they'd fit another two cylinders in there. 

I gotta say, for the little amount they are charging for the upgrade to diesel.  As long as you're not looking for raw speed, the diesel might be the best choice of engine for this truck. 460 lb-ft of torque plus a 10-speed should still hustle it along pretty good. 

I have no complaints with (a now getting tired) 520 TRQ in a 6500 lb truck.

great job Chevy.  The farmers I know love the chance to use diesel in their pickups since they have diesel tanks on their farms.

One issue with diesels in the US....states like mine put biodiesel requirements in play.  Some diesels do not take to these biodiesel fuels well.  My friend had bought a Nissan Titan diesel and returned it because of the issues with the Titan engine and biofuel.  I hope GM has made this diesel compatible with these mandatory biodiesels.

That is outstanding and I always felt like 30 mpg on a truck was the magic number to hit to stand out, 23/33 mpg is like 4-cylinder Malibu numbers from 10 years ago so we have advanced a long way.   This does make the Silverado stand out.  I think the Silverado has some issues in the looks department which are costing it sales though.

I don't know, maybe with the 10-speed, the midsize twins with the 4 cylinder diesel could eke out a better MPG rating?

This kinda renders the mid-size trucks irrelevant. 

9 hours ago, balthazar said:

This kinda renders the mid-size trucks irrelevant. 

Some people don't need or want full-size pickups.  Mid-size works great for them.

Hard to believe the 33 MPG number.  Do beef curtains really enhance aero THAT much?  The truck is massive, some would say unnecessarily so, and brick-nosed.  But I do trust GM and their MPG testing.  33 MPG is for 2WD of course, with 4WD rated at 29 MPG.

Still rather drive what I have.  Would have strongly considered diesel if it were available in a non-ZR2 extended cab.  Uncle says his neighbors are reporting 18 MPG with their crewcab ZR2 Duramax.

Ugh- I hit 18+ (highway) with a crewcab 6.6TD DuraMax. 

So what would a Colorado get with the 2.0T or 2.7T and a mild hybrid system?  I bet either of those would top 30 mpg.

1 minute ago, smk4565 said:

So what would a Colorado get with the 2.0T or 2.7T and a mild hybrid system?  I bet either of those would top 30 mpg.

GM, just like Ford and Ram have never been able to make small or mid size efficient trucks. GM would be best to make the mid size truck an EV at this point.

6 hours ago, dfelt said:

GM, just like Ford and Ram have never been able to make small or mid size efficient trucks. GM would be best to make the mid size truck an EV at this point.

What a lameass statement.  Clueless.  Would they intentionally wish to drop midsize truck sales by 98%?

The base Tacoma has no power, I bet Toyota could put an Avalon Hybrid powertrain in there and make it just as capable and get over 30 mpg.

11 hours ago, ocnblu said:

What a lameass statement.  Clueless.  Would they intentionally wish to drop midsize truck sales by 98%?

GM already dropped midsize truck sales by 100%  in the 2/3 year gap between the 1st and 2nd gen Colorado/Canyon, so there is precedent.

13 hours ago, ocnblu said:

What a lameass statement.  Clueless.  Would they intentionally wish to drop midsize truck sales by 98%?

What a lame ass counter statement but then again, that’s nothing new coming from a known anti-progress troll. 

Mileage and driving reviews of this diesel with the 10-speed are great...

...I wish GM spent half the time just putting the 10-speed with every powertrain, and spending the rest of the money they wasted with so many combos, to improve the rest of the truck.

Here's the thing though. No one upgrades or pays more for a "better" powertrain. Enthusiasts and magazines do. No one else does. 33mpg will be a great marketing moneker. But diesels never sell here. Ever. And, even in the case of gas and "more power", no one buys them. Great time and energy spent on this one, but, unsure of the results.

Not being negative, just factual. The rest will remain 5.3L's with the clunky needs to go away 8-speed, a few confused buyers ending up with the 2.7T, and 2 a year buying the 6.2L/10-speed. Too many combos. Diesel, GREAT. But go to a Ford lot...and see the old age, leftover diesel F-150's still sitting around. Great marketing...but buyers don't care.

Hmm...

2 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

What a lame ass counter statement but then again, that’s nothing new coming from a known anti-progress troll. 

16 hours ago, dfelt said:

GM would be best to make the mid size truck an EV at this point.

Don't just chime in for the sake of it, surreal.  You know damn well it would never work, and it was posted purely to troll the thread.  "Progress" can only be termed as such when it actually changes something for the better.

On 7/26/2019 at 10:22 PM, balthazar said:

This kinda renders the mid-size trucks irrelevant. 

Yes and no.. The price of this is still significantly more than a mid-sizer. I think about the cheapest this can be had is about 43k(39k LT package + 3890) for 4WD or 40k for 2WD. A Colorado with the 3.6, LT trim, 4WD is 32K, 2WD is $28,400 so there is still a pretty significant price difference between the two that ~10k in fuel savings will roughly take..never years to pay off.

FYI, I did extended cab configurations for both to find the cheapest builds.

FWIW, LT, crew cab(because it isn't available in extended cab), Colorado, 4WD and 2.8 Duramax is 39k. I definitely think it just kicked the 2.8 to the curb. I don't see that selling for sh!t once these are on dealer lots. 

20 hours ago, caddycruiser said:

Mileage and driving reviews of this diesel with the 10-speed are great...

...I wish GM spent half the time just putting the 10-speed with every powertrain, and spending the rest of the money they wasted with so many combos, to improve the rest of the truck.

Here's the thing though. No one upgrades or pays more for a "better" powertrain. Enthusiasts and magazines do. No one else does. 33mpg will be a great marketing moneker. But diesels never sell here. Ever. And, even in the case of gas and "more power", no one buys them. Great time and energy spent on this one, but, unsure of the results.

Not being negative, just factual. The rest will remain 5.3L's with the clunky needs to go away 8-speed, a few confused buyers ending up with the 2.7T, and 2 a year buying the 6.2L/10-speed. Too many combos. Diesel, GREAT. But go to a Ford lot...and see the old age, leftover diesel F-150's still sitting around. Great marketing...but buyers don't care.

Hmm...

Ford also priced their F-150 diesels too high for people to make the jump.  I think GM did the right thing by keeping the diesel upgrade cost low. 

19 hours ago, ocnblu said:

 

Don't just chime in for the sake of it, surreal.  You know damn well it would never work, and it was posted purely to troll the thread.  "Progress" can only be termed as such when it actually changes something for the better.

“Don’t just chime in for the sake of it”

Like how you just did with your first trolling post?

And you wouldn’t know progress if it slapped you upside the head with a solid state battery. Your comment was pure hyperbole and trolling nonsense as always. 

Guys... 

7 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

Like how you just did with your first trolling post?

That was a reply to the first trolling post in the thread.  I won't apologize for replying.

1 hour ago, ocnblu said:

That was a reply to the first trolling post in the thread.  I won't apologize for replying.

Never asked you to apologize. You also have a backwards view of what is considered “trolling”. The comment you are referring to was not trolling given the fact that the maker of said truck has big EV plans while your “lame ass” remark was the very definition of trolling, like so many of your anti anything to do with EVs history. Just the same old tripe and it’s just that, old. 

Regarding the actual subject,

This is a smart move by GM, from the price to getting top MPGs. One question though. Why oh why doesn’t the smaller diesel Colorado not sport those kind of numbers (as well as being on the pricier end of spectrum as far as Colorado’s how)?

12 hours ago, surreal1272 said:

This is a smart move by GM, from the price to getting top MPGs. One question though. Why oh why doesn’t the smaller diesel Colorado not sport those kind of numbers (as well as being on the pricier end of spectrum as far as Colorado’s how)?

I've thought this as well.. Smaller, lighter, smaller diesel... The transmission difference has shown to not make THAT large of a difference. 

4WD: 19/28/22 (city/highway/comb)

2WD: 20/30/23

Compared to the Silverado's 3.0

4WD: 23/29/25

2WD: 23/33/27

If those mpg figures hold, it would be an amazing truck for that price. I wonder what the cheapest diesel will ring up at. 

From what I thought I remembered it was priced the same as the 6.2 and the 6.2 is only offered in the LTZ trim(and up) with 4WD meaning $50,040. 

I don't know what that means for the lower trims, if it's available or not. 

18 minutes ago, Potluck said:

If those mpg figures hold, it would be an amazing truck for that price. I wonder what the cheapest diesel will ring up at. 

Based on the GM released info, you can get this in the LT as a $3,890 upgrade. So basic LT is $28,300 according to their web site. 28,300 + $3,890 = $32,190 plus delivery and applicable taxes. Not too shabby for a 33 mpg diesel truck.

it'll depend if it is tied to other packages

7 hours ago, dfelt said:

Based on the GM released info, you can get this in the LT as a $3,890 upgrade. So basic LT is $28,300 according to their web site. 28,300 + $3,890 = $32,190 plus delivery and applicable taxes. Not too shabby for a 33 mpg diesel truck.

What?  That LT base price must be either of these two:

A:  Shipped to the customer's home without wheels and tires, or

B:  After incentives... which will probably not be the same on the diesel when it comes out.

2019 Double Cab/Standard Bed LT 2WD starts at $35,745. So a 3.0TD would be around $39,600 with no 4WD and no options.  

$28,300 is W/T regular cab price tier.
 

Yeah, I doubt there will be incentives on the diesel. 

That said, diesels usually beat their EPA estimates don't they? They always have in cars. 

To date, there’ve been no EPA numbers on GM diesel trucks : over X weight class are exempt. Ive never seen a rating number for the 6.6TD.