GM Inside News Forum banner

Colorado gets new V6, 8-Speed Trans for 2017

15K views 66 replies 37 participants last post by  1958carnut 
#1 ·
Chevy Colorado gets new V6, Eight-Speed Transmission for 2017
By Justin King
Friday, Aug 26th, 2016
LeftLaneNews.com

General Motors has detailed a few efficiency-focused enhancements for the 2017 Chevrolet Colorado.

The lineup will receive an all-new V6 engine paired with an eight-speed automatic transmission. The outgoing 3.6-liter mill and six-speed automatic gearbox achieved city/highway efficiency estimates of up to 18/26mpg in two-wheel-drive form, only slightly worse than the 2.5-liter four-cylinder's 20/27 mpg EPA rating.

Maintaining the same displacement, the new V6 adds several of GM's latest efficiency refinements. Variable valve timing and direct injection have been revised, while two cylinders are automatically deactivated during light throttle conditions.

CONTINUE AT LINK ABOVE
 
#19 ·
And the press release incorrectly lists the outgoing transmission as the 6L80 when in previous PRs they list it as the 6L45 (matching the name of the 8AT's 8L45 designation). Way to proofread. :doh:



I suspect that if anyone is holding their breath waiting for the 4.3 to go into the Colorado/Canyon, they will be turning a nice shade of Laser Blue.

I thought the new 10 speed was going in everything rear wheel drive.
Considering that the 10-speed is set to make its production debut in the 2017 ZL1, it will take some years before the Colorado gets it.
 
#8 · (Edited)
while two cylinders are automatically deactivated during light throttle conditions.
And poof.....there goes any hopes for long term durability out of the 3.6L engine.

The turbo diesel is the Colorado I'd get.

Yeah, they should put the 4.3 into it, might lower the price
If they want to put a 3rd gasoline option in there....it should be the 5.3, not the coarse, rough running 4.3.
 
#18 ·
Can I get a Colorado with a sunroof yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: scout62
#36 · (Edited)
Still no ZR2? And no manual transmission other than the base 4 banger?
Diesel ZR2 would be pretty kewl.....

The new LGX/LGZ is arguably the best normally aspirated gasoline V6 engine available in any MY 2017 pickup truck. IMO, Colorado/Canyon is the ideal application for this engine.
Don't discount the Pentastar, its pretty darn good. And its getting an update soon as well (I believe). Or course there is no longer a Dakota to put it in, however there will be a Jeep PU out next year.
 
#21 ·
This is an appealing option. I'm looking to get one of these for the wife in the near future.
 
#32 ·
There are a lot of things in which they could/should do however for reasons those things are not being done. There might be internal numbers that they have access to that we the public do not have access to in which it makes more sense to offer the 2.5L and 3.6L gasoline engines only. I do believe that the ATS has dumped the 2.5L engine for 2017 so we might be seeing a phasing out of the 2.5L engine. The only Chevy Sedan that currently offers the 2.5L engine right now is the Impala as the Malibu dumped it for the 1.5T engine. The Impala is probably too heavy for the 1.5T engine to replace the 2.5L engine and we might not see any change until the next Impala. The Malibu LS with the 1.5T engine has a base curb weight of just under 3,100 pounds so I think the extra 600 pounds of the Impala makes it to heavy for that engine.

I do think that eventually we will see the 2.5L engine killed off as it is being dropped from pretty much any model with it only in two Chevy models the Colorado and the Impala. For 2017 no Cadillac has the 2.5L engine anymore, the thing is as things stand now the 2.0T engine would work as a good upgrade over the 2.5L engine and not a replacement engine. You would ideally want to replace the 2.5L engine with an engine that has roughly the same output however is better in some areas or an engine that is identical but slightly more powerful.

Also while the 2.5L engine might be going away in North America it may be relevant in other markets making it worth while keeping around as cost are low enough. Actually with the 2.0T engine making up to 295ft-lbs of torque I might prefer it in the Colorado over the 3.6L engine. I also feel that the 4.3L engine would make sense in the colorado (more sense then the 3.6L engine) and wish that they offered it.
 
#33 ·
You make a lot of good points roadkillz,
I thought of the 2.0T as a 2.5 replacement but then perhaps in a truck, it's too close to the 3.6 V6
ot maybe undermines the diesel option with its 31 mpg. Whatever, there's probably a ripple effect
where sensible changes to you and I cause logistics nightmares with the rest of the production schedule.
 
#34 ·
The 2.5L is used on the Colorado/Canyon due to it being able to power the truck in an acceptable manner and it is cheaper for commercial fleet owners to maintain than Turbo alternatives.

Also do not think GM figured on many retail sales for the 2.5L when they had the 2.8L TD in the plan for retail buyers looking for MPG.

Think it might be awhile before GM dumps the 2.5L since gas prices are not putting a lot of pressure on MPG and most commercial buyers are more interested in lower up-front and TCO numbers.


That said, I do think GM could use the 2.0T as a unique feature to the Tacoma and counter the upcoming Ranger that is likely to offer an Eco-Boost Turbo I-4, although Ford is more likely to offer the 2.3T.

This is another reason GM needs to develop a durable/refined 2.3L to 2.5L Gas Turbo to counter the 2.3L from Ford.
 
#37 ·
I have been eagerly awaiting ordering a 2017 Diesel Denali for like 2 years. But with the upgraded motor and especially the trans getting to the gasser I'm thinking I might just save $3700 and add a tune and an airbox to the LGX instead.

My question is: the valve coking issues as a result of DI, have they been cured with the new LGZ? Cause that reoccurring problem is a deal killer for me.
 
#40 ·
Honestly I can't say I've read any review on it. Some googling got me to a forum thread where everyone that owns it is very pleased with it. I was originally looking for a pickuptrucks.com or similar review. Got any specific ones you can recall that were negative? "On Paper" the engine sounds great for a base truck engine, so I'd be curious to see where it falls short in the real world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ed753
#49 ·
#53 ·
The 4.3L is a cheaper way for GM to offer a V6 in the Sierra/Silverado since it can share some mounting/accessory drive hardware and can be made on the same line as the V8.

Having driven both a Sierra 4.3L Crew Cab and a Colorado 3.6L Crew, I can say that the 4.3L is a better "Truck" engine and delivers similar "daily driving" performance to the 3.6L.

I personally would prefer to see the 4.3L in the Canyon/Colorado but do not think GM will ever do it since they seem to want to make the trucks differ in some ways and do not want an "easy reason" to add a V8 to the Canyon/Colorado.


If it were up to me the Canyon/Colorado would use the 4.3L V6 and 5.3L V8 options (6.2L is too much) - but think GM will offer the 3.6L and 3.0TT (maybe 3.6TT), which is not a bad way to go.
 
#50 ·
also gm may be using lower speed tq convertors that are affecting off the line performance even with the ultra low gears of a modern transmission. i know that the last couple of years of the second gen cts, caddy put something like a 1800 rpm stall speed tq convertor in which took the edge off the 3.6Ls acceleration. if you want go off the line performance ALWAYS go with the smallest or lightest wheel tire package.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top