• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

New 2.8L Colorado Duramax

BIGR

Lucky To Be Here
Messages
5,614
Likes
3,379
Location
Appalachian Mountains
Anyone wanting a 2019 2.8L Colorado Duramax, word is on the net there is a loss of 2 MPG City on the 2019 GM, 2 wheel drive 2.8 Duramax truck. 2018 4×2 diesel carried a rating of 22 mpg city, 30 mpg highway, and 25 mpg combined, the EPA rates the 2019 model at 20 mpg/30 mpg/23 mpg. No one can explain why, no gear ratio changes or engine tuning differences. Supposedly GM said that they would look into it?????? :stop::eek:
 

BoostN

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
8,313
Likes
680
Location
Tennessee
Thread starter Staff #107
Anyone wanting a 2019 2.8L Colorado Duramax, word is on the net there is a loss of 2 MPG City on the 2019 GM, 2 wheel drive 2.8 Duramax truck. 2018 4×2 diesel carried a rating of 22 mpg city, 30 mpg highway, and 25 mpg combined, the EPA rates the 2019 model at 20 mpg/30 mpg/23 mpg. No one can explain why, no gear ratio changes or engine tuning differences. Supposedly GM said that they would look into it?????? :stop::eek:
That's not ideal. The truck was already at that "line" of ok, this is good MPG for a truck, but it's a smaller truck. With the 3.0L 1500 coming soon, I wonder how this motor fits in in the future.

If the 1500 3.0L even touches close to 30MPG, I would see no advantage of the Colorado unless you just like a smaller truck and/or don't have the room for a full size.
 

BIGR

Lucky To Be Here
Messages
5,614
Likes
3,379
Location
Appalachian Mountains
That's not ideal. The truck was already at that "line" of ok, this is good MPG for a truck, but it's a smaller truck. With the 3.0L 1500 coming soon, I wonder how this motor fits in in the future.

If the 1500 3.0L even touches close to 30MPG, I would see no advantage of the Colorado unless you just like a smaller truck and/or don't have the room for a full size.

Right there with you on that kind of thinking.

Why not have more room and protection in a half ton truck if it can get within one to three miles per gallon of the Colorado?

My daily driver is a 2002 S-10 4x4 extended cab, its easy to drive and park compared to my 2500HD, but I am always thinking about the possibility of being in a serious crash, I give up a lot of protection, I feel better in a 1/2 ton or bigger.

One of these days I am going to buy a newer truck and I will be looking for one that can get 30 MPG or better on the open highway, guess I might have to wait a few more years.:)
 

Will L.

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,826
Likes
6,859
Location
Boulder City Nv
On the crash side of things, you really have to look into the crash test results. Some of the full size rucks have more driver and front passenger injuries than the slightly smaller counterparts. I have not seen the results of the Colorado, but speaking to a guy that does all the advanced training for fire/ rescue for all the state of NV, he said the difference of 2016model trucks are amazing compared to just the 2000 model ones. I said " I hate to ask about 90's or 80's- He said "Don't ask. Just sell the trucks to someone you don't know."

Obviously his view point is based on safety primarily. He is usedto buying a new truck every 3 years anyways for his work. He was the one that got me looking at the tesla cars with what he described. It was his families tesla's I drove. Only time he even let's his wife or kids in his truck is if the tesla is down.
 

BIGR

Lucky To Be Here
Messages
5,614
Likes
3,379
Location
Appalachian Mountains
Crash safety and technology has come a long ways for sure, I have seen some crashes that you would not believe, many I have tried to forget about. Sometimes it really wouldn't matter what they were in, unless it was a tank. As a general rule the majority of collisions (crashes) can be avoided, it is operator error, except for an act of nature, like a tree falls off a bank onto a car.

I agree a 2017 Colorado, would probably be safer than a 1980's or 1990's half ton truck or a 1957 Chevrolet. Air bags, restraint systems and crash structure engineering have come a long ways. Manufactures try to design the vehicles to dissipate impact energies and in a lot of cases design the motor to go under the vehicle instead of through the firewall.

As far as my two trucks, I do feel way safer in my 2006 Chevy, 2500HD, crew cab versus my little 2002 S-10 extended cab. My extended cab S-10 has the suicide door arrangement as I consider it, no post there, just the little half back door closing on the front door on the drivers side. Passenger side is solid, its considered to be a third door truck I guess.

The biggest collision I fear is a head on collision on a 2 lane road, some Jack Ass, is texting and comes across the line and gets me. I see people all the time on the double line or crossing it, and I really get pissed off, :mad:thinking to myself, why can't you keep your vehicle on your side of the road, you Bastard.:mad: You can research it, head on collisions are frequent and are very deadly, usually someone is going to die or get severely injured.

Side collisions are another very dangerous collision. As we already know generally someone runs a red light, stop sign or pulls out in front of someone and gets T-Boned, yelp that's not going to end well.

Ok, Rant off, I told you how I feel.
 
Top