• 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!

GM Doing away with 2.8l Diesel

BIGR said:
If there's enough room, put the 3 liter inline 6 diesel in the Colorado and Canyon?
Click to expand...
I highly doubt it. They're having trouble already in the half tons with heat management.

It probably boils down to people aren't buying them and many of the ones out there are having more than there fair share of problems. There is more than a few that have suffered EARLY engine failures, stock & deleted. It really doesn't have that good of a reputation. On top of that it only comes in a midsize truck and it's not getting any better mpg's than the new 1500 with a diesel. Kinda makes it an even tougher sell.
 
RI Chevy Silveradoman said:
I was unaware that GM was having any issues with the 2.8l Diesel engines.
Click to expand...
There's some talk about it here. I guess wrist pin failure has been happening.


www.coloradofans.com

2017 ZR-2 Duramax Failure- Bone Stock

Duramax Failure After experiencing a catastrophic engine failure a couple of weeks ago, I stumbled across this forum and the many threads regarding similar 2.8l occurrences. I felt obligated to post my story here for all of the other "baby" Duramax owners. Please refrain from turning this into...
www.coloradofans.com www.coloradofans.com
 
Wow, that really does suck about the 2.8 Liter Diesel having issues, I thought GM might have had something good there.... :(

Another thing that irks me is, GM going to these small displacement GAS engines and sticking turbos on them in an attempt to make up for good ole displacement. If what Trucktrend is saying is true, GM is dropping the 3.6 liter V-6 gas engine and going with a little 2.7 Liter, 4 banger, Turbo Gas engine for the Colorado/Canyon. That just SUX, I don't care anything about a Turbo on a small gas engine, just give me a fuel injected V-6 or V-8. Go ahead GM and follow Ford with your Turbo plans. Look at Ford, ECO Boost that Eco Boost that. Ford Ranger came back out with some little Eco Boost Turbo 4 Banger. Maybe the Eco Boost is working out for them, but what's it going to cost to replace a Turbo on a gas engine. I have nothing against a Turbo on a diesel engine, its common thing I get it, but trying to make up engine power on a small displacement gas engine with a turbo is not my cup of tea. I understand what the auto makers are trying to do, trying to get their fleet fuel mileage up there to meet some bull s%&t emission and mileage regulations.....:mad::rage: Maybe I don't agree with all that new stuff because I am old school, where we believed in regular gas and displacement.
 
Bash the EcoBoom all y'all want, but I have gotten more trouble free miles out of one than the Burb's 6.5 ever gave me ;) Sure, the motor is rather complex, but it delivers. Do not know how the 10 speed is working out, but the 6 speed is great. I have also done maintenance *way* ahead of Ferd's schedule as I had read enough (and observed) that the OE schedules are garbage and go far too long. Even the oil life as calculated by computer is junk and have the oil analyses to show that this motor needs very short intervals.

Toward turbo durability, it is water cooled. So even at shut down the turbos stay cool as the design allows coolant to flow by way of convective activity. Only downside to this is that I cannot use Evans as it will coke their product (I asked) and have to stick with glycol mix.

Yes, there were some issues with the first generation no different than any other learning curve.

Am currently running what some might consider the Gen2 EcoBoost with the updated intercooler and first revision of internals. Am impressed with the power delivery as it is smooth. Even on a stock tune, it is easy to surprise the angry moth / rice burner crowd as they do not expect a large SUV to spank them.

Sadly though, Ferd put a suspension in the SUV that has no possibility of stiffening, not even by aftermarket. It is good up to the 7K# trailer territory, but take it up into the 8K# range and the rear starts to losen up. Too bad as even at the higher weight range, pulling is really nice (except for the lose rear part). Decel takes a bit more work as I have to force the tranny into lower gears than the code wants to do on its own (I see this as poor coding). Overall, the only thing the platform really needs is a driveline retarder to compensate for the smaller motor, oh, and a way to stiffen the rear.

So, yes, GM could do well to copy Ferd in its use of boosted smaller displacement motors. GM could also do well by hiring a few Dodge software engineers as those folks figured out how to get deceleration speed under tight control.
 
Glad your ECOBOOM is good for you. LOL
Just relaying info from Genuine Ford Mechanics. 😁
I think they are going to Turbos for power, less emissions, and fuel mileage. But certainly not for longevity or durability. Just to satisfy Gov't tier levels.
I'll stick to my "old skool" stuff. Much better.
 
Overall, the 2.8L is very reliable.

This isn't surprising, as the fullsize truck will match MPG to the smaller truck and have more power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top