Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.
Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.
Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.
This. If it had been the option when we bought ours in 06 I would have. AS it is we'll have our truck for at least 20 years as long as a tree doesn't fall on it or a semi t-bones it.
I thought the 1st gen Colorados were about the perfect size for a small truck. 
But of course I didn't buy one and apparently not enough others did either and here we are with a bigass Colorado!
Vigo wrote: Don't get me wrong, as I love that this truck now exists, but I kinda feel like its thunder was stolen long before it ever existed by the 3.0 Ram that gets very close to the same MPG while being better at basically everything except MAYBE parking (and it probably depends more on visibility than anything else, because the Colorado is HUGE). It's kinda the same deal as 'v6 ranger vs v6 f150' used to be, except back then at least the smaller truck was actually small. The first time I saw the Colorado in person, I almost didn't notice it because I was looking for Chevy's new midsize truck and the ones they had on display were absolutely massive. Easily as big on the outside as the full sizes of 1 or 2 generations back. So yeah, a diesel Colorado is a cool truck, but most of them are going to be spec'd out to be just another big truck, and if i'm buying a 30mpg big truck i'm buying a Ram. Just my .02.
The Col/Can's are the size of the older full sizes. For people like the wife and I, the new FS trucks are just too damn massive forwhat we want/use it for. The Col/Can are damn near perfect.
Seriously, the CC longish bed Canyon's specs: 74" wide, 71" tall, 225" long with a 140.5" wheelbase.
Our 2006 Sierra Crewcab SB is 78" wide, 72" tall, 230" long with a 143.5" wheelbase.
Vigo wrote: I thought the 1st gen Colorados were about the perfect size for a small truck.
I think it's GM realizing they madethe new fullsizes too big and this is their atonement.
Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.
Ive heard this alot through the years but there are a ton of high mileage gas engines running around. What kind of difference are we talking about? Is a 400k mile gasser worse than a 400k mile diesel? In both cases I would think maintenence matters more than fuel type.
logdog wrote:Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.Ive heard this alot through the years but there are a ton of high mileage gas engines running around. What kind of difference are we talking about? Is a 400k mile gasser worse than a 400k mile diesel? In both cases I would think maintenence matters more than fuel type.
400k on a gas is a lot. 800k on a diesel is not. I've got more than a few customers with million + mile diesel engines without a rebuild.
Bobzilla wrote:Vigo wrote: Don't get me wrong, as I love that this truck now exists, but I kinda feel like its thunder was stolen long before it ever existed by the 3.0 Ram that gets very close to the same MPG while being better at basically everything except MAYBE parking (and it probably depends more on visibility than anything else, because the Colorado is HUGE). It's kinda the same deal as 'v6 ranger vs v6 f150' used to be, except back then at least the smaller truck was actually small. The first time I saw the Colorado in person, I almost didn't notice it because I was looking for Chevy's new midsize truck and the ones they had on display were absolutely massive. Easily as big on the outside as the full sizes of 1 or 2 generations back. So yeah, a diesel Colorado is a cool truck, but most of them are going to be spec'd out to be just another big truck, and if i'm buying a 30mpg big truck i'm buying a Ram. Just my .02.The Col/Can's are the size of the older full sizes. For people like the wife and I, the new FS trucks are just too damn massive forwhat we want/use it for. The Col/Can are damn near perfect. Seriously, the CC longish bed Canyon's specs: 74" wide, 71" tall, 225" long with a 140.5" wheelbase. Our 2006 Sierra Crewcab SB is 78" wide, 72" tall, 230" long with a 143.5" wheelbase.
2016 Sierra CRew Cab SB 80" wide, 73.9" tall, 229.5 long 143.5 WB.
They do look massive though. But not really any bigger then your 06.
In reply to Dietcoke:
I'd hesitate to do a delete, but I'd expect a tune to see 400lb-ft and 33-34mpg highway. These things are an attractive package to me. Add a big trans cooler, skidplates, proper suspension have something that'll function as a tow rig and handle most duties that a pre-runner would see. It's the first truck I'd consider dailying.
NickD wrote:Tyler H wrote:But will the break on flat land or upgrades? I've never noticed vehicles break an inordinate amount of times on a downgrade over any other surface.GM Press Release wrote: Smart diesel exhaust braking enhances vehicle control and reduces brake wear by reducing the need for breaking on downgrades.
Breaking usually leads to upgrades, so there's that.
Vigo wrote: I thought the 1st gen Colorados were about the perfect size for a small truck.
The first gen was the same size as an older (80's) full size, and they've done it again. The first gen S10 was the perfect size for a small truck, IMO.
WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to ultraclyde: To be fair, if you got worse than 8mpg with a 460, you were trying to pull the moon at WOT
My record low is 6.5mpg. 
I wonder about the longevity of the newer diesels. There are quite a few nightmares running around about crap failing on them.
Toyman01 wrote:WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to ultraclyde: To be fair, if you got worse than 8mpg with a 460, you were trying to pull the moon at WOTMy record low is 6.5mpg.
Yea, it's why Dad's current farm truck('13 psd f350) will be traded in prior to warranty expiration unlike his previous farm trucks(99 psd f250 & 87 5.8 f150) which we still have. LoL
Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.
This isn't really true anymore. Not when the gas engines are seeing 200-300kmi+ with no problems.
nocones wrote:Bobzilla wrote:2016 Sierra CRew Cab SB 80" wide, 73.9" tall, 229.5 long 143.5 WB. They do look massive though. But not really any bigger then your 06.Vigo wrote: Don't get me wrong, as I love that this truck now exists, but I kinda feel like its thunder was stolen long before it ever existed by the 3.0 Ram that gets very close to the same MPG while being better at basically everything except MAYBE parking (and it probably depends more on visibility than anything else, because the Colorado is HUGE). It's kinda the same deal as 'v6 ranger vs v6 f150' used to be, except back then at least the smaller truck was actually small. The first time I saw the Colorado in person, I almost didn't notice it because I was looking for Chevy's new midsize truck and the ones they had on display were absolutely massive. Easily as big on the outside as the full sizes of 1 or 2 generations back. So yeah, a diesel Colorado is a cool truck, but most of them are going to be spec'd out to be just another big truck, and if i'm buying a 30mpg big truck i'm buying a Ram. Just my .02.The Col/Can's are the size of the older full sizes. For people like the wife and I, the new FS trucks are just too damn massive forwhat we want/use it for. The Col/Can are damn near perfect. Seriously, the CC longish bed Canyon's specs: 74" wide, 71" tall, 225" long with a 140.5" wheelbase. Our 2006 Sierra Crewcab SB is 78" wide, 72" tall, 230" long with a 143.5" wheelbase.
The important things like bedside height and floor height are quite a bit taller which makes them seem even larger. It's hard for me at 6' to reach over the bedsides and reach the floor to pull something out. It's impossible for the wife at 5'8" Yet we can both reach in on our '06.
Unfortunately, not in showrooms yet. At least around here. I asked, was told later in model year.
C'mon, advertise it for a model year it should be available when the model year comes out.
Bobzilla wrote:logdog wrote:400k on a gas is a lot. 800k on a diesel is not. I've got more than a few customers with million + mile diesel engines without a rebuild.Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.Ive heard this alot through the years but there are a ton of high mileage gas engines running around. What kind of difference are we talking about? Is a 400k mile gasser worse than a 400k mile diesel? In both cases I would think maintenence matters more than fuel type.
How many of those customer engines have modern emissions equipment and fuel systems? There's a lot more complexity (read stuff that can go wrong) with a modern diesel vs what was being sold just 10 years ago.
Gas engine lifespans have greatly increased over the last 15 years, but it seems to me that diesels have gone the other direction as the complexity and cost have increased so much. Diesel may still hold the edge in lifespan, but its not as great a gap as it once was, and when you factor in the increased initial cost, increased maintenance costs, and potentially increased fuel costs, it's far from a clear winner.
It does sound nice on paper, but for me every time I've been truck shopping the problem has been math. The higher purchase price negates the fuel saving. It takes far too many miles to break even. If the diesel engine needs repaired the costs can be astronomical, to the point that you will be in the red on the diesel no matter how many miles you drive. So then it comes down to if I need a diesel because i want to do things that a gas truck won't. For me thats not the case. My 6.0 gas is capable of far more than I ever ask of it.
gearheadmb wrote: My 6.0 gas is capable of far more than I ever ask of it.
Except ever getting more than 18mpg. 
Make mine the crew cab with a w/t package (vinyl floors, crank windows) and a stick shift please. 
STM317 wrote: There's a lot more complexity (read stuff that can go wrong) with a modern diesel vs what was being sold just 10 years ago.
What specifically is different from 10 years ago to today? Understand that EGR coolers, Urea injection, and regening cat's were in place 10 years ago...
STM317 wrote:Bobzilla wrote:How many of those customer engines have modern emissions equipment and fuel systems? There's a lot more complexity (read stuff that can go wrong) with a modern diesel vs what was being sold just 10 years ago. Gas engine lifespans have greatly increased over the last 15 years, but it seems to me that diesels have gone the other direction as the complexity and cost have increased so much. Diesel may still hold the edge in lifespan, but its not as great a gap as it once was, and when you factor in the increased initial cost, increased maintenance costs, and potentially increased fuel costs, it's far from a clear winner.logdog wrote:400k on a gas is a lot. 800k on a diesel is not. I've got more than a few customers with million + mile diesel engines without a rebuild.Mr_Clutch42 wrote: Diesel engines last longer, so for the few owners that know they will keep it for 12+ years, it will matter.Ive heard this alot through the years but there are a ton of high mileage gas engines running around. What kind of difference are we talking about? Is a 400k mile gasser worse than a 400k mile diesel? In both cases I would think maintenence matters more than fuel type.
Yeah, IMO the whole "diesels last longer" thing is mostly a myth, or at least not nearly as true as it used to be. There are several factors at work here:
Most big, industrial engines tend to be diesels. Semis and such. They are known for going for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of miles. However, they are also designed for that kind of life because of their intended use. They also generally get better maintenance than Joe Average does with his personal vehicle.
Diesels are built to be stronger and beefier than gas engines. Thicker castings, bigger bearings, etc. This is true, but it's not to make them more durable than gas engines, it's to make them as durable while surviving the much more violent combustion events of the diesel cycle. In short, they are stronger because they have to be. See the GM 350 diesel conversions of the early 1980s for what happened when they weren't.
Most engines were overbuilt to one extent or another in the days before modern computer design and simulation. That's why modern engines are so much more powerful and efficient than their older counterparts, they are "closer to the edge" in terms of airflow, friction, bearing life, heat, timing, etc. That's why you could bolt a supercharger onto a Fox Mustang, double it's horsepower, and have it live for years with no internal upgrades. Because of the aforementioned violent combustion, diesels were more overbuilt.
In short, I would expect a new engine, designed in the last ~10 years, to last equally as long, gas or diesel. And these days, that's pretty long. Any modern engine that can't go 200k with regular maintenance is a rarity. The rest of the car may be a different story, though....
Out here in california diesel is on average right now 40 cents cheaper per gallon than regular unleaded. And in 7 yrs of diesel ownership out here there has been very very few times the price of diesel has been as high or higher than premium.
So having the versatility of a crew cab truck but still getting maybe a high 20's low 30's combined fuel economy would be great. When I had an F150 I always said to myself if a truck got 25mpg+ real world normally I would daily one.
For now however I am spoiled with my E350 Diesel
Side Note: Since Diesel is a more dense fuel it also means less trips to the station usually going 500-600 miles on a tank while most my gassers have tended to get around 300 mpg a tank it really is nice not having to fill up as often
Unless you are towing regularly, I don't think the value proposition is there for diesel anymore.
There is also a difference between loaded and unloaded MPG. My Cummins would typically get 20-22 MPG (18 if I really drove it like an ass). But load up the bed with 2000 lbs of firewood - 20 MPG.
Comparatively, my E150 would get 16-18 MPG. Loaded with less firewood and MPG dropped to about 14, doing the same drive from the ex's parents' farm in PA to her house in NJ. Never mind the fact the poor 5.0 EFI strained to get up the same hills the Cummins accelerated up while barely breaking a sweat.
If you tend to haul weight often, diesel can make a substantial difference and the pay-back is much faster.
You'll need to log in to post.
