My Time in the New Colorado

[hyperv6]

Well I got a deal from GM that if I test drove a new Chevy I would get a $50 Gift Cars to Best Buys, Amazon, etc.

 

Well I visited the dealer and the salesman said he would take care of my card and I did not have to even test drive. I told him I really wanted to drive a Colorado. So without even asking who I was or taking any information I was provided with a set of keys to a $36,758 Crew Cab short bed Colorado.

 

Well I drove off and took it on a good test drive. Here are some of my impressions.

It is very quiet unless you kick the V6 down. The 3.6 has that growl and in a truck it should be more of an asset than liability.

The ride was smooth and solid. Little flex in the chassis even on rough roads. My old Crew Sonoma you could feel her dance a little from front to back but this one was more stiff.

 

The structure was solid as no rattles or other noises that many trucks can produce. Over time I expect it will retain this.

 

The interior felt nice and it had full leather. The Screen was large and easy to use. The 4x4 knob was an easy reach and shifted on the fly with no fuss.

 

I did take issue with the color of the interior. It was Jet Black. This color is almost a part of every color combination Chevy offers. GMC offers a Beige and Brown like color and would be enough to get me to a GMC dealer over the Chevy. The brighter tones appear much more upscale even in the same materials.

 

The driving position and feel is much like my wife's Terrain. It is nearly the same width and height. The steering was lighter in the truck.

 

The transmission shifts where I am not used to it. But I noted in 4 wheel drive it felt like it held the gears a little longer and shifted smoother to what I expect.

 

I was pleases with the truck and it may be 2 years before I buy I would consider this. I want to see what other options they add as we have not seen a ZQ8 yet. I would love a sport truck but if not I may opt for a Z71 package. I really don't need the 4x4 but I like the trim better and the resale will be much better. I always get a good return on my used trucks. I normally keep them in good shape and with the added options I always get top dollars and sell to the first person who looks at it.

 

GM did a good job here but they will need to keep moving the sticks as it would not be hard to be a little more innovative with models and hardware and top this with the future trucks. This is part of the reason I am waiting a little longer. I suspect GM may have much more to add here now that they see the market loves this truck.

 

I will watch to see what the Denali offers. I want a power sun roof to.

 

Note to this truck in 2 wheel  drive and sport suspension would just scream for a Turbo 2.0.

 

 

[El Kabong]

Thanks for the report, man. Good stuff.

I'd never considered the possibility of the 2.0T in the Canyonado before. It would be an interesting possibility.

Edited November 1, 2015 by El Kabong

[hyperv6]

I love my LNF Turbo and the only real thing I hate is the FWD.

 

Now this combo in the Solstice was great and the GM tune put it at 290 HP and 340 FT LBS of torque with the RWD. Now put that in a two wheel drive truck with a sport suspension and you may have an interesting ride that still get good MPG.

Note my Sonoma was an extended cab. My error in the first post.

Edited November 1, 2015 by hyperv6

[El Kabong]

With the 2.0T the only thing I can think of that might hold it back in this application is the overlap with the V6. The torque curve is probably better with the 2.0 but I'm guessing GM wants to funnel as many people as they can into the Duramax first.

[ocnblu]

Nice write-up.  I have almost 13k miles on mine already.  No need to return for warranty work yet.  There was one recall, it was checked for loose seat mounting bolts, but mine was OK.  I am getting 22.5-24.5 MPG with mine.  One tank was over 25 MPG, involving a highway road trip.  These trucks are great.

Edited November 1, 2015 by ocnblu

[hyperv6]

The extra torque would only be with premium fuel only. That is what I think would hold this back. GM really hates to do Premium Fuel Only on Chevys outside a Corvette or high end Camaro.

 

People have an aversion in this price range to premium fuel for some reason. That is why all the engines are premium recommended not required. I had a long talk with a Marking Brand Manager at GM on this that got stuck with a Premium only 3.8 SC. He was not happy as it cost them sales. He said a Recommended engine would have made a large difference in sales. GM changed in in later models.

[Frisky Dingo]

I'll pass on a turbo-4 sport truck. Give me a TT V6 or the 5.3 and we can talk, though.

[hyperv6]

Sorry but the goal for companies are to make trucks that get better MPG by 2025 and the TT V6 and or any V8 would counter what they are working towards. I would love it to but reality is in play here.

 

The only way I see a V8 here is if they kill the Half ton and move to the smaller truck with less mass. Otherwise we have what we have.

Besides you put that engine in this truck it will drive cost to the price of a full size anyways. They would be better off with a Full Size Sport package for the 2WD.

[daves87rs]

Waiting to test drive one myself....still miss my old little truck....

 

 

Thinking a simple WT trim extended cab truck would work fine in my case...

[ccap41]

Nice write up! Thanks for it.

 

As for the 2.0T in it. I could see just a detuned 2.0T as a replacement for the base engine. As it stands it does seem too close in numbers to the 3.6(while probably a better choice would be the 2.0 for its tq curve but I don't think the customer would swallow a 2.0T as the top engine in a truck quite yet). If they could drop the numbers to around 225/250 that would be a fantastic base engine. But I guess they might not want that good of a base engine so people still pay the premium for the 3.6.

 

Somehow it would be nice to see it squeezed in there. I guess the more I think about it the less sense it makes..

[cp-the-nerd]

Come on, guys. No tiny turbo in a 4000+ lb truck. That would drive like crap. Hasn't Ford shown that every time they put their 2.0T in a heavy turd? Taurus, Edge, Explorer. Even the MKC 2.0T is slow.

 

All this truck needs when it's refreshed is the LGX or 4.3L ecotec3 V6 and the 8-speed auto.

[ccap41]

Why would it be more of a turd than the base 2.5? The 2.0T COULD just be taken out of the Regal GS at 259hp/295tq and that's pretty stout numbers compared to the base 2.5's 200hp/191tq.

 

And in all of those vehicles(the Fords) it wasn't the top engine so it's fine that it wasn't very quick as they offered an engine above the 2.0T.

[Frisky Dingo]

Sorry but the goal for companies are to make trucks that get better MPG by 2025 and the TT V6 and or any V8 would counter what they are working towards. I would love it to but reality is in play here.

 

The only way I see a V8 here is if they kill the Half ton and move to the smaller truck with less mass. Otherwise we have what we have.

Besides you put that engine in this truck it will drive cost to the price of a full size anyways. They would be better off with a Full Size Sport package for the 2WD.

 

Putting the 5.3 in a Colorado would get no worse mileage than it already gets in the heaver, less aerodynamic Silverado. Also, there is currently a 12 grand gulf between a Colorado and a Silverado. Dropping the 5.3 in there would not just evaporate that gap. Why make a sport truck offering out of your heavier, larger truck? Makes no sense.

 

But I'm all for making a Silverado sport truck variant, too. After all, they already put the 6.2 in there. Upgraded brakes and suspension would complete the package.

To be clear, I have no problem with the 2.0T serving as a base engine. 

[hyperv6]

Sorry but the goal for companies are to make trucks that get better MPG by 2025 and the TT V6 and or any V8 would counter what they are working towards. I would love it to but reality is in play here.

 

The only way I see a V8 here is if they kill the Half ton and move to the smaller truck with less mass. Otherwise we have what we have.

Besides you put that engine in this truck it will drive cost to the price of a full size anyways. They would be better off with a Full Size Sport package for the 2WD.

 

You do understand that all of this is moving to smaller displacement not just for MPG but also credits on CO emissions of various forms the EPA will be handing out.

The EPA is working to give credits for various systems in vehicles that save CO emissions such as lighting systems, heaters systems and even smaller displacement systems.

GM is not focusing all this on the smaller engines just for MPG up front but for the credits they can earn moving forward as they will need them.

There is a good article on it in the coming Car and Driver that breaks it down on how it works.

The future is not just CAFE only but will be measured in emission to give companies other ways to meet the crazy numbers they have put up against them.

Putting the 5.3 in a Colorado would get no worse mileage than it already gets in the heaver, less aerodynamic Silverado. Also, there is currently a 12 grand gulf between a Colorado and a Silverado. Dropping the 5.3 in there would not just evaporate that gap. Why make a sport truck offering out of your heavier, larger truck? Makes no sense.

 

But I'm all for making a Silverado sport truck variant, too. After all, they already put the 6.2 in there. Upgraded brakes and suspension would complete the package.

To be clear, I have no problem with the 2.0T serving as a base engine.

You do understand that all of this is moving to smaller displacement not just for MPG but also credits on CO emissions of various forms the EPA will be handing out.

The EPA is working to give credits for various systems in vehicles that save CO emissions such as lighting systems, heaters systems and even smaller displacement systems.

GM is not focusing all this on the smaller engines just for MPG up front but for the credits they can earn moving forward as they will need them.

There is a good article on it in the coming Car and Driver that breaks it down on how it works.

The 502 did not disappear just for MPG only and GM is not pushing an small Diesel just for MPG only.

Edited November 3, 2015 by hyperv6

[cp-the-nerd]

Why would it be more of a turd than the base 2.5? The 2.0T COULD just be taken out of the Regal GS at 259hp/295tq and that's pretty stout numbers compared to the base 2.5's 200hp/191tq.

 

And in all of those vehicles(the Fords) it wasn't the top engine so it's fine that it wasn't very quick as they offered an engine above the 2.0T.

 

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing.

 

A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck.

[hyperv6]

Why would it be more of a turd than the base 2.5? The 2.0T COULD just be taken out of the Regal GS at 259hp/295tq and that's pretty stout numbers compared to the base 2.5's 200hp/191tq.

 

And in all of those vehicles(the Fords) it wasn't the top engine so it's fine that it wasn't very quick as they offered an engine above the 2.0T.

 

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing.

 

A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck.

Not true

I just happen to own a LNF 2.0 Turbo and a Malibu 3.6 and the 2.0 will our run the 3.6 in all aspects and no brake torque needed. In fact the major fault in the 2.0 is it can be difficult to hook the tires up as they want to spin from the get go. I have even set off the traction control at over 50 MPH to the point the wastegate pops and the traction control light comes on and the DIC has the Traction Loss message.

So cut the lag BS as the new engines run 9.5 to one compression and with the duel scrolling the turbo is pretty much lag free as can be. To be honest the transmission kick down lags more than the engine in the BU vs my LNF.

Note I do have the GM upgrade tune but the other turbo engines while lower on power are still as responsive and lag free. I wish more people would drive a modern turbo and stop thinking about the old Sunbird and GN lag.

The engine in that truck would not add that much weight, the real issue is cost if you want a real negative.

Also traction could be an issue with such low torque. But the low end torque per the GM engineer is why I get better MPG with the GM tune that added 55 HP. He said the car gets up to speed faster and by letting off the gas [the DI engine cuts fuel when coasting] it adds 1-2 MPG even with the added power and Torque. It was a surprise to them too but he confirmed I did not make a mistake in my MPG.

Please anyone who has not spent time with the new Turbo engines learn them as they will be the norm in most vehicles. I used to hate them with a passion for the lag and lack of durability but today I love the new engines as the better materials and designs. The better oils and tuning, the better DI systems/electronic systems that love a Turbo are all making these engines what they can be today.

It is sad but my FWD 2.0 will run as fast as any of my old muscle cars from the past in stock form even if they are on radials and my FWD lack of traction due to weight transfer.

Just wait for the times on the new Turbo Camaro and you will be shocked what a small engine can achieve. With some minor tuning it will out run the V6 easily and it is no slouch.

Edited November 4, 2015 by hyperv6

[Drew Dowdell]

I would bet that the 2.0T would come from the ATS rather than the Regal... it's good for a little bit more power in that application.

 

Anyway,  anyone who thinks the 2.5 has better low end torque than the 2.0T clearly hasn't driven both.  Even the old 2.4 has better low end torque than the 2.5.

[cp-the-nerd]

 

 

Why would it be more of a turd than the base 2.5? The 2.0T COULD just be taken out of the Regal GS at 259hp/295tq and that's pretty stout numbers compared to the base 2.5's 200hp/191tq.

 

And in all of those vehicles(the Fords) it wasn't the top engine so it's fine that it wasn't very quick as they offered an engine above the 2.0T.

 

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing.

 

A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck.

 

Not true

I just happen to own a LNF 2.0 Turbo and a Malibu 3.6 and the 2.0 will our run the 3.6 in all aspects and no brake torque needed. In fact the major fault in the 2.0 is it can be difficult to hook the tires up as they want to spin from the get go. I have even set off the traction control at over 50 MPH to the point the wastegate pops and the traction control light comes on and the DIC has the Traction Loss message.

So cut the lag BS as the new engines run 9.5 to one compression and with the duel scrolling the turbo is pretty much lag free as can be. To be honest the transmission kick down lags more than the engine in the BU vs my LNF.

Note I do have the GM upgrade tune but the other turbo engines while lower on power are still as responsive and lag free. I wish more people would drive a modern turbo and stop thinking about the old Sunbird and GN lag.

The engine in that truck would not add that much weight, the real issue is cost if you want a real negative.

Also traction could be an issue with such low torque. But the low end torque per the GM engineer is why I get better MPG with the GM tune that added 55 HP. He said the car gets up to speed faster and by letting off the gas [the DI engine cuts fuel when coasting] it adds 1-2 MPG even with the added power and Torque. It was a surprise to them too but he confirmed I did not make a mistake in my MPG.

Please anyone who has not spent time with the new Turbo engines learn them as they will be the norm in most vehicles. I used to hate them with a passion for the lag and lack of durability but today I love the new engines as the better materials and designs. The better oils and tuning, the better DI systems/electronic systems that love a Turbo are all making these engines what they can be today.

It is sad but my FWD 2.0 will run as fast as any of my old muscle cars from the past in stock form even if they are on radials and my FWD lack of traction due to weight transfer.

Just wait for the times on the new Turbo Camaro and you will be shocked what a small engine can achieve. With some minor tuning it will out run the V6 easily and it is no slouch.

 

 

I'm not just making sh*t up. I've driven the 259 hp/295 lb-ft 2014 Malibu 2.0T, the Malibu 2.5L, Fusion SEL 2.0EB, Fusion S 2.5L, and Optima 2.0T. You can't tell me my first hand experience isn't true or that the Malibu 2.0T (which is a different engine than the LNF) is faster or better driving than my 3.6L V6. But frankly, we're getting off topic because you laser focused on the wrong part of my post and took it out of context. The midsize cars were just an example that illustrated the advantage of N/A power in general. I'm not calling for the death of the turbo. They can be fast, fun, and efficient. I'm saying don't saddle a tiny engine with an overweight vehicle and expect turbos to flawlessly replace displacement.

 

Every review of a 2.0T in a heavy vehicle reflects my experiences magnified several times over. The Ford Edge, Explorer, and Taurus 2.0L Ecoboost are slower and poorer driving than the 3.5L Duratec (which has less torque). Hyundai/Kia's large crossovers with the 2.0T are total dogs, just begging for their 3.3L DI V6, again with a lower torque rating.

 

I'm pretty positive a 2.0T Colorado would be underwhelming despite its torque advantage on paper.

[Drew Dowdell]

Maybe I missed something, but I thought we were comparing the 2.5 to the 2.0T... not the V6.

[cp-the-nerd]

Maybe I missed something, but I thought we were comparing the 2.5 to the 2.0T... not the V6.

 

If we're talking about replacing the low cost N/A 2.5L with the 2.0T, I'm not seeing the financial case for GM because it wouldn't cost less to build than the V6. But I do think that driving feel and responsiveness maneuvering at low speeds would favor the 2.5L with its extra displacement. Obviously acceleration times and passing power would favor the 2.0T.

[Drew Dowdell]

I thought the original suggestion that brought the 2.0T up was for a RWD sports truck.

[cp-the-nerd]

Yes, that is what brought on my initial debate.

[ccap41]

I don't see how the 2.5 would do a single thing better than the 2.0T(even detuned for more economy and further distance from the 3.6).

 

I have to agree with hyper here, modern tubo cars spool virtually instantaneous and are designed around the low end and not top end. For instance, the Ford 2.0 can create max boost at 2000rpm. That's very much so the bottom end. If I were to knock the smal turbo motors it would be the top end in a race rather than daily drivability.

Edited November 4, 2015 by ccap41

[hyperv6]

Why would it be more of a turd than the base 2.5? The 2.0T COULD just be taken out of the Regal GS at 259hp/295tq and that's pretty stout numbers compared to the base 2.5's 200hp/191tq.

 

And in all of those vehicles(the Fords) it wasn't the top engine so it's fine that it wasn't very quick as they offered an engine above the 2.0T.

 

Acceleration times aren't everything. The 2.5L is the absolute lightest the truck can get and it has 25% more displacement for moving the truck from a stop. That's a whole different scenario for a 2.0L turbo. That truck will weigh 100-200 lbs heavier and every time the turbo has to spool to catch up to your foot, you get a sag in power, basically an engine with 150 lb-ft of torque trying to move a two ton truck. Then the surge of turbo relief kicks in, it's just not ideal for heavy vehicles. The F150 2.7L ecoboost has two things in its favor: 35% more displacement and 2 more cylinders. You're looking at over 200 lb-ft of smooth torque even when the turbos are doing nothing.

 

A turbo engine says "peak torque from 2000 rpm to 5000" or whatever, but in the real world, you have to brake-torque from a stop to get anywhere near that on takeoff. The difference between my Malibu 3.6L V6 and the new Malibu, Fusion, and Optima 2.0T is immediate responsiveness and effortless power during the times when a turbo lags. If it's noticeable in 3500-3600 lb sedans, it's total crap in a two ton truck.

Not true

I just happen to own a LNF 2.0 Turbo and a Malibu 3.6 and the 2.0 will our run the 3.6 in all aspects and no brake torque needed. In fact the major fault in the 2.0 is it can be difficult to hook the tires up as they want to spin from the get go. I have even set off the traction control at over 50 MPH to the point the wastegate pops and the traction control light comes on and the DIC has the Traction Loss message.

So cut the lag BS as the new engines run 9.5 to one compression and with the duel scrolling the turbo is pretty much lag free as can be. To be honest the transmission kick down lags more than the engine in the BU vs my LNF.

Note I do have the GM upgrade tune but the other turbo engines while lower on power are still as responsive and lag free. I wish more people would drive a modern turbo and stop thinking about the old Sunbird and GN lag.

The engine in that truck would not add that much weight, the real issue is cost if you want a real negative.

Also traction could be an issue with such low torque. But the low end torque per the GM engineer is why I get better MPG with the GM tune that added 55 HP. He said the car gets up to speed faster and by letting off the gas [the DI engine cuts fuel when coasting] it adds 1-2 MPG even with the added power and Torque. It was a surprise to them too but he confirmed I did not make a mistake in my MPG.

Please anyone who has not spent time with the new Turbo engines learn them as they will be the norm in most vehicles. I used to hate them with a passion for the lag and lack of durability but today I love the new engines as the better materials and designs. The better oils and tuning, the better DI systems/electronic systems that love a Turbo are all making these engines what they can be today.

It is sad but my FWD 2.0 will run as fast as any of my old muscle cars from the past in stock form even if they are on radials and my FWD lack of traction due to weight transfer.

Just wait for the times on the new Turbo Camaro and you will be shocked what a small engine can achieve. With some minor tuning it will out run the V6 easily and it is no slouch.

 

I'm not just making sh*t up. I've driven the 259 hp/295 lb-ft 2014 Malibu 2.0T, the Malibu 2.5L, Fusion SEL 2.0EB, Fusion S 2.5L, and Optima 2.0T. You can't tell me my first hand experience isn't true or that the Malibu 2.0T (which is a different engine than the LNF) is faster or better driving than my 3.6L V6. But frankly, we're getting off topic because you laser focused on the wrong part of my post and took it out of context. The midsize cars were just an example that illustrated the advantage of N/A power in general. I'm not calling for the death of the turbo. They can be fast, fun, and efficient. I'm saying don't saddle a tiny engine with an overweight vehicle and expect turbos to flawlessly replace displacement.

 

Every review of a 2.0T in a heavy vehicle reflects my experiences magnified several times over. The Ford Edge, Explorer, and Taurus 2.0L Ecoboost are slower and poorer driving than the 3.5L Duratec (which has less torque). Hyundai/Kia's large crossovers with the 2.0T are total dogs, just begging for their 3.3L DI V6, again with a lower torque rating.

 

I'm pretty positive a 2.0T Colorado would be underwhelming despite its torque advantage on paper.

Well you drove it but I own it.

I own and drive a 3.6 2008 Malibu and drove it to work today. I can even see it from my office right now. At home I own a HHR SS with a LNF 2.0 Turbo that started out as a 250 HP [235 HP in first gear before the upgrade] now with the GM upgrade it has right at 300 HP and 315 FT LBS non. I have drive both over the last week and since 2008 and know both intimately. The Turbo will run circles around the 3.6. I also own a Terrain with the 3.0 V6 for more points of reference.

Now the first mistake you are making is assuming all 2.0 Turbo engines are the same they are not. The truth is GM's Eco has one of the flattest torque curves on the market and has been one of the most powerful engines available till just the last year or two for this size engine. The Malibu 2.0 and my HHR 2.0 are very similar and if anything the new Malibu was tuned to lessen the low end torque just a little as it can be annoying at times as it is hard to take off fast. Even just goosing the gas at a yellow light will send the tires screaming through the intersection.

A standard cab Colorado with the added torque the 2.0 Eco is capable of it would run just fine. As stated the Solstice was returning 340 FT LBS with the rear wheel drive set up.

The LNF as it is can be run up to 400 HP with no internal mods as the engine is that durable. Just over 400 they do recommend rods and pistons but it can easily then go over 500 HP.

The real stumbling block to the higher HP is the engine will require Premium Fuel only. I am seeing 23 PSI now and know others running up to 30 PSI with no ill effects. The premium Only rating would not be popular with many buyers in this price range. With the MPG it would get the added cost would be small but the public seldom finds it that way.

The first key to all this is stop comparing a Ford or Hyundai or any other brand 2.0 Turbo to the GM 2.0 Turbo as they are not the same and are tuned totally different. If it were the Ford or Hyundai I would not even buy the engine as it is not close to what I experience in each car.

The only reason I went here is because I feel it was a good idea as an Option in this truck and you were not accurate in your assessment. You may have driven but I not only drive but live with and own the engines in question and know just what they can do and what they are all about. I really wish the Bu I have had the Turbo in it. But then again we would be back to what I do hate about the 2.0 and that is it being in a FWD vehicle.

Note the Diesel works well with similar torque and even much less HP.

[hyperv6]

I thought the original suggestion that brought the 2.0T up was for a RWD sports truck.

It was and I was forced to defend the 2.0 vs the 3.6 of which I own both and live with daily.

[cp-the-nerd]

Now you're justifying the 2.0T sport truck with mods. Stock for stock, a 2.0T RWD ATS is slower than the 3.6L RWD ATS, and all the reviewers I recall preferred the V6 other than the fact that Cadillac wont sell it with the manual transmission.

 

If they build a Colorado/Canyon sport truck, it should be a Syclone successor with the 3.6TT.

[cp-the-nerd]

I don't see how the 2.5 would do a single thing better than the 2.0T(even detuned for more economy and further distance from the 3.6).

 

I have to agree with hyper here, modern tubo cars spool virtually instantaneous and are designed around the low end and not top end. For instance, the Ford 2.0 can create max boost at 2000rpm. That's very much so the bottom end. If I were to knock the smal turbo motors it would be the top end in a race rather than daily drivability.

 

Every actual Ford application of the 2.0T in large cars/crossovers disagrees with your assertion that the 2.0T would make a good option in the Colorado. I wasn't saying turbos lack bottom end, I was pointing out that it requires full boost to make it. There is some degree of lag when you're stopped and put your foot on the gas, it's just way more obvious with 4000 lbs of car to move.

[cp-the-nerd]

Now you're justifying the 2.0T sport truck with mods. Stock for stock, a 2.0T RWD ATS is slower than the 3.6L RWD ATS, and all the reviewers I recall preferred the V6 other than the fact that Cadillac wont sell it with the manual transmission.

 

If they build a Colorado/Canyon sport truck, it should be a Syclone successor with the 3.6TT.

 

P.S. Your HHR SS weighs 3300 lbs from factory.

 

My whole point revolves around WEIGHT vs displacement, and you're insisting on comparing your modded HHR to my experience with a 3700 lb Malibu Turbo as if that's apples to apples, yet this whole conversation is really about putting the 2.0T in a 4000+ lb truck!

 

I'm not saying the 2.0T is bad or under-performing, which is the impression I'm getting from your responses.

[ccap41]

 

I don't see how the 2.5 would do a single thing better than the 2.0T(even detuned for more economy and further distance from the 3.6).

 

I have to agree with hyper here, modern tubo cars spool virtually instantaneous and are designed around the low end and not top end. For instance, the Ford 2.0 can create max boost at 2000rpm. That's very much so the bottom end. If I were to knock the smal turbo motors it would be the top end in a race rather than daily drivability.

 

Every actual Ford application of the 2.0T in large cars/crossovers disagrees with your assertion that the 2.0T would make a good option in the Colorado. I wasn't saying turbos lack bottom end, I was pointing out that it requires full boost to make it. There is some degree of lag when you're stopped and put your foot on the gas, it's just way more obvious with 4000 lbs of car to move.

 

You are correct that the publications do not like it but if you stuck a n/a 2.5 they would like that waaaay less. The only thing, if I recall correctly, was the mpg, right? I mean it isn't the top engine in any of the vehicles you pointed out so it isn't expected to haul ass. Actually, if I am correct it is(was) the base engine in the Explorer and Edge and there were n/a V6s and ecoboost v6 above it. The most recent version in the Edge it was just on the toes of the n/a v6.

 

This is all of-opic but the point of it was that the 2.0 EcoBoost in the 4309lb Edge did a fantastic job and it was on the heels of the n/a v6 and was still within the mpg ratings(which we all know if good news for an EcoBoost..lol)

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-edge-titanium-20t-ecoboost-awd-test-review

[hyperv6]

No my point is the turbo engine would be much better than the 2.5 that is in there now. Do you have an issue with 4 engine options over 3?

 

The Turbo would make an interesting option here not cost MPG and could easily handle the vehicle tuned properly. GM can make this engine much more than what it is now. 340 ft lbs  in the GM tune was emissions legal, Warranty covered and got better MPG. 340 FT LBS should handle 4000 pounds readily.

 

I know you understand the HP but I think you really do not understand the torque and you really miss it on the lag and just how hard these little engines pull.

Look to the Chevy II GM took to SEMA. It has the 2.0 turbo in it and the engine works well in the car. From what I read it made for a really fun car to drive.

[Stew]

I think the 5.3/8 speed auto would be fantastic in this truck.  Not much for the turbo 4 idea though as it would be cost prohibitive.