• 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!

2.8L Duramax SPECS

BoostN

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
1,135
Location
Tennessee
Base Price (short bed):
Chevy LT 2x4 $33,520
GMC SLE 4x2 $34,875

181 HP at 3400 RPM
369 TQ at 2000 rpm

Can run up to 20% Bio-Diesel

GM 2.8L TURBO DIESEL I4 DURAMAX XLD28 SPECS
DISPLACEMENT (CU IN / CCM / L): 169.4 / 2776 / 2.8
ENGINE TYPE: COMMONRAIL TURBO DIRECT INJECTION WITH INTERCOOLER
ENGINE CONFIGURATION: DOHC 16-VALVE
CYLINDER CONFIGURATION: INLINE 4-CYLINDER
FUEL: DIESEL
MANUFACTURING SITE: RAYONG, THAILAND
POWER (HP / kW @ RPM): 200 / 147 @ 3600
TORQUE (LB-FT / Nm @ RPM): 360 / 500 @ 2000 (AUTO)
STROKE (IN / MM): 3.937 / 100
BORE (IN / MM): 3.7 / 94
COMPRESSION RATIO: 16.5:1
 

WarWagon

Well it hits on 7 of 8...
Messages
9,022
Reaction score
4,086
Location
AZ
Ok, maybe the answer to "Where is my MPG?" in the HP wars the big three are in. However it is sad when a stock 6.5 can kick it's ass esp. for as under powered as the 6.5 is legend to be.

Duramax in name only?

The manufacturing site is a real kick in American's teeth. Makes me lean toward a Nissan with the 5.0 Cummins even more. GM like FCA isn't smart enough to use that engine.
 

Ed HD

Formerly: Dad's 05 LLY
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
346
Location
Chuck Town, Iowa
Ok, maybe the answer to "Where is my MPG?" in the HP wars the big three are in. However it is sad when a stock 6.5 can kick it's ass esp. for as under powered as the 6.5 is legend to be.

Duramax in name only?

The manufacturing site is a real kick in American's teeth. Makes me lean toward a Nissan with the 5.0 Cummins even more. GM like FCA isn't smart enough to use that engine.
Thing is it's in a small truck, behind a 6 speed transmission. Should get decent mileage and not be a total slug...
 

THEFERMANATOR

FRANKENBURBAN
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
3,660
Location
ZEPHYRHILLS FL
Ok, maybe the answer to "Where is my MPG?" in the HP wars the big three are in. However it is sad when a stock 6.5 can kick it's ass esp. for as under powered as the 6.5 is legend to be.

Duramax in name only?

The manufacturing site is a real kick in American's teeth. Makes me lean toward a Nissan with the 5.0 Cummins even more. GM like FCA isn't smart enough to use that engine.
OK, let me get this striaght. You're disappointed because it is LESS than HALF the displacement, but has less power? And a 6.5L stock isn't that slow as I outran several stock 7.3L powerstrokes with mine in similiar weight vehicles. And a stock CUMMINS didn't stand much of a chance either stock VS stock. So because it has 9HP less, and is going in a truck that weighs probably a 1/3rd less, you automatically assume it will be slower? And last I checked, I'm pretty sure the ones being sold in the US are being built in the US. The DMAX engine has been widely available abroad for YEARS now, so of course the 1st engines that came out weren't made here since it wasn't sold here. But they did start calling them a DURAMAX VS a DMAX with the 2.8L as they knew they would be selling the 2.8L stateside eventually(once they get MORE approval from the EPA after the VW debacle). So far those who have driven it and actually seen them say it looks like a nice truck and has decent pickup. There are some concerns if the 6L50E trans they are putting behind it will hold the torque, but it comes with a 7700 pound tow rating(higher than MANY 6.5L equipped truck's came with even with the MUCH larger diesel engine), and touts MPG in the high 20's to low 30's even WITH all of the emissions BS on them.
 

WarWagon

Well it hits on 7 of 8...
Messages
9,022
Reaction score
4,086
Location
AZ
The tables make my eyes water with the Metric krap. I was reading 147 kW as HP not the 200 HP same/same. And the numbers topside and below don't even match so now I am really confused as to what the specs are.

The 4000 LB Colorado certainly isn't a small truck like the 2800 LB S-10's were. C/K's were said to be 3800 LB. 500LBS less then the modern Silverado is like 2 passengers, so not a lot of difference.

We have been changing the reputation of the 6.2/6.5 engine by waking them up, but, that doesn't change the past reputation of this power level in a pickup.

So corrected ~40 ft lbs less and 200 lbs more to move... And that's not looking at it's actual rating that looks to be 6000 lbs in the other review thread. (Just the online article and weights listed in link above.)
 
Last edited:

BoostN

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
8,529
Reaction score
1,135
Location
Tennessee
Why are we comparing a engine that's 20 years old to this new one?

I'm sure a lightly tuned 2.8L will go circles around a 6.5.. but, we'll have to see.
 

THEFERMANATOR

FRANKENBURBAN
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
3,660
Location
ZEPHYRHILLS FL
Its 181hp and 369 lb ft torque, not to shabby for 2.8L's of displacement. Heck, thats not even bad by marine standards. And I believe dsp4 tuning is already available for them since the engine has been available abroad for a few years now. Also it isnt a clean slate enfmgine needing long term testing since it has already had the bugs worked out oversees. Only thing thats new to it is the emissions package and the 6 speed auto(overseas it uses a manual trans). Deletes should be as simple as getting ahold of an overseas tune as they don't have crap on them overseas, and still run smokeless with no emissions equipment. I think it is a very smart move on gm's part to bring it here. The only unknown is how well it will be accepted by US buyers, and how well the trans will fare with all that torque(but theres already talk of putting a 6L80E behind it if its a problem).
 

THEFERMANATOR

FRANKENBURBAN
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
3,660
Location
ZEPHYRHILLS FL
Put it in the Suburban!!
It wouldn't really be a good BURB engine. Compared to even a 4.8l engine(which I don't think they ever put anything smaller than the 5.3L on them in over a decade), I imagine the power would be pretty disappointing. It would push it and I bet get good milage, but it would be a tough sell to the public with slow 0-60 times.
 

WarWagon

Well it hits on 7 of 8...
Messages
9,022
Reaction score
4,086
Location
AZ
Why are we comparing a engine that's 20 years old to this new one?

I'm sure a lightly tuned 2.8L will go circles around a 6.5.. but, we'll have to see.
Because people still haven't forgotten the past! Further the power level, displacement and technology be dammed, is less than the 6.5TD that was known to have trouble getting out of it's own way. So the HP wars appear to forgotten with this engine, but, it goes below the minimum acceptable power level again on a heavier vehicle. Towing is frankly an afterthought (good or bad) as the main use will be daily driver. Even so going from a Daily Driver 3/4T HP War Winner to this anemic slug will be disappointing, let alone new diesel owners expecting power and no black smoke over yesterday.

GM chose to limit their displacement after letting the 3.0 V6 go to FCA. GM also chose to make a near full size truck rather than an 1/2 ton lighter S-10 size pickup. The bright side is it only takes 4 expensive HPCR injectors vs. 6 or 8.

I still remember the 5 cylinder gas slug GM gave the Trailblazers, Colorado's, and H3 HUMMERS. What a numb unexciting and boring experience. Changed to fun with the 5.3 V8 Alpha edition H3 and at the same or better MPG.

Regardless I am simply pointing out History that appears to be repeating itself. Of all the diesels to choose from GM decided to choose this one and the Colorado... :facepalm:
 

Dunedain15

Active Member
Messages
141
Reaction score
25
Location
Lebanon, PA
It wouldn't really be a good BURB engine. Compared to even a 4.8l engine(which I don't think they ever put anything smaller than the 5.3L on them in over a decade), I imagine the power would be pretty disappointing. It would push it and I bet get good milage, but it would be a tough sell to the public with slow 0-60 times.
The guy in the video said the weight of the Colorado was 6k. I was just thinking that's only a little under a Burb. And, since they won't put the full-size Dmax in it, it would put a diesel SUV back on the map.
 

Dunedain15

Active Member
Messages
141
Reaction score
25
Location
Lebanon, PA
The guy in the video said the weight of the Colorado was 6k. I was just thinking that's only a little under a Burb. And, since they won't put the full-size Dmax in it, it would put a diesel SUV back on the map.
K, well I just looked it up. That dude was grossly mistaken. 2016 Dmax Colorado is 4520 lb. The Burb is 5808 lb. I guess an extra half ton would make a difference.
 

THEFERMANATOR

FRANKENBURBAN
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
3,660
Location
ZEPHYRHILLS FL
Because people still haven't forgotten the past! Further the power level, displacement and technology be dammed, is less than the 6.5TD that was known to have trouble getting out of it's own way. So the HP wars appear to forgotten with this engine, but, it goes below the minimum acceptable power level again on a heavier vehicle. Towing is frankly an afterthought (good or bad) as the main use will be daily driver. Even so going from a Daily Driver 3/4T HP War Winner to this anemic slug will be disappointing, let alone new diesel owners expecting power and no black smoke over yesterday.

GM chose to limit their displacement after letting the 3.0 V6 go to FCA. GM also chose to make a near full size truck rather than an 1/2 ton lighter S-10 size pickup. The bright side is it only takes 4 expensive HPCR injectors vs. 6 or 8.

I still remember the 5 cylinder gas slug GM gave the Trailblazers, Colorado's, and H3 HUMMERS. What a numb unexciting and boring experience. Changed to fun with the 5.3 V8 Alpha edition H3 and at the same or better MPG.

Regardless I am simply pointing out History that appears to be repeating itself. Of all the diesels to choose from GM decided to choose this one and the Colorado... :facepalm:
They chose it bacause it is a PROVEN combo. Lets wait and see what happens, last I heard 2015 orders were filled BEFORE pricing was even announced. MAYBE they know more than you credit them for.
 

THEFERMANATOR

FRANKENBURBAN
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
3,660
Location
ZEPHYRHILLS FL
K, well I just looked it up. That dude was grossly mistaken. 2016 Dmax Colorado is 4520 lb. The Burb is 5808 lb. I guess an extra half ton would make a difference.
My 2500 disel BURB weighed in right at 6500 pounds in 4X4 trim. Would it push it, I'm sure it would. But I bet they wouldn't be happy with the acceleration it had. GM has to sell to the masses, not an isolated market. And after the VW debacle, diesels are being pushed back even more.
 

btfarm

340,000 Worth and counting
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
17,179
Reaction score
3,766
Location
Sandwich, Illinois
Burbs need oomph. Our 5.3 '07 Tahoe with 6 adults in it is very noticeably under-powered at highway speeds. Of course I'm accustomed to the Duramax so I'm spoiled but put a couple more people in a Burb along with the extra weight built in and there isn't going to be enough power.
 

Ed HD

Formerly: Dad's 05 LLY
Messages
3,152
Reaction score
346
Location
Chuck Town, Iowa
Burbs need oomph. Our 5.3 '07 Tahoe with 6 adults in it is very noticeably under-powered at highway speeds. Of course I'm accustomed to the Duramax so I'm spoiled but put a couple more people in a Burb along with the extra weight built in and there isn't going to be enough power.
There's a reason I wanted the 403 HP 6.2 in my Denali. Gets shitty mileage, but I didn't buy it because it was a fuel miser. Auto-ride also helps a LOT when you get 8 people in there, keeps the rear end from getting all saggy and squirrelly...

/offtopic
 

THEFERMANATOR

FRANKENBURBAN
Staff member
Lead Moderator
Messages
9,731
Reaction score
3,660
Location
ZEPHYRHILLS FL
GM designed, built, and even manufactured ALRGE numbers of the 4.5L V8 DURAMAX, and then shelved the design and sold off 1500 of them after 2008 when the bubble popped. They still have the design, and could put it back into production quickly if they so chose to do so, but it doesn't look like it will ever happen. It makes no sense to me that they spent so many MILLIONS designing it to replace most any small block V8, and then shelved it, but it is what it is. If you want to know what one would have looked like, the FORD 6.7L SCOPRION diesel is actually just a bigger version of one. FORD copied the 4.5L engines design when they decided to build there own diesel in house(so much for starting with a clean sheet design). They used the revers flow where the exhaust exits through the valley between the heads and everything just like GM had designed.

Or there is the 3.0L ECODIESEL that FIAT put into the DODGE that GM had PAID FIAT to design for them in Europe for the ESCALADE oversees. GM shelved it at the same time as the 4.5L engine, and FIAT picked it up since it was there design.
 
Top