Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Telecom Ronin |
Exactly.....living in TX this is approx 70% of the trucks I see....this would be good for the Tahoe as well. I use my truck both off road and to haul crap plus I like to keep trucks as long as possible....4cyl turbo does not sound good for any of that....maybe I am wrong, by the time I am looking to buy (2+ years) we will see Personally I would rather a medium displacement diesel 200hp/350ftlb would be nice, the Chevy Colorado has an interesting diesel...mind you its a $4K+ option....and it's a Chevy  The Jeep pick up will have the 3.0 diesel...but I would rather have dependability over coolness.....but it does look COOL | |||
|
| Raised Hands Surround Us Three Nails To Protect Us  |
I had the same concerns when shopping for my Expedition. Did I want a 2014 with 5.4L V8 or 2015/16 with the Ecoboost V6. I wanted to have the truck for at least 10 more years and make it 200k. After a lot of reading and plenty of F150s with 200k+ starting in 2011 I am not too worried about them. Only about 2 months in but loving it. Small turbo diesels have been around a long time and go lots of miles in Europe and Africa for quite sometime so I am not too worried. ———————————————— The world's not perfect, but it's not that bad. If we got each other, and that's all we have. I will be your brother, and I'll hold your hand. You should know I'll be there for you! | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
I love these assumptions. I match this description 56% of the time I drive my F350, but there's 40% of the time that anything less won't do the job. | |||
|
Member |
Just an FYI. The small turbo in the Honda(CRV) has had some major problems. We got a 2017 CRV with the ‘older’ conventional engine, no problems. There are lawsuits lining up over the small turbo engine. I’d at least wait a bit to make sure the bugs are worked out. | |||
|
| Let's be careful out there |
only truck I ever had was a 1964 GMC with a 250 CI carburetor engine, and a 4 speed stick. I really do think simple is better. | |||
|
| Page late and a dollar short |
How true. I still remember the launch of the 2013 ATS. THIRTEEN campaigns in the first year, albeit many were reprogramming issues, regardless, recalls. With fondness I still remember the sunglass holder/map light fiasco. Campaigned then a while later another campaign to replace the part first replaced as the second one did not meet FMVSS requirements. As we used to say whoever was in charge of that mess probably got promoted...... -------------------------------------—————— ————————--Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even, usually, surpassing knowledge(E.J.Potter, A.K.A. The Michigan Madman) | |||
|
| Page late and a dollar short |
The Canyon/Colorado platform already has an Isuzu Diesel, 2.8L with a towing capacity of 7700 lbs. -------------------------------------—————— ————————--Ignorance is a powerful tool if applied at the right time, even, usually, surpassing knowledge(E.J.Potter, A.K.A. The Michigan Madman) | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
Yes. And the Ford 2.7l Ecoboost produces more torque across a wider rpm range as well as more horse power. In the Colorado, the 2.8l is epa rated for 22 city, 30 hwy, and 25 combined. The 2.7l in the larger F150 is rated for 20 city, 26 hwy, and 22 combined. The Colorado diesel gets 14% better fuel economy than the larger F150 with the 2.7 ecoboost. However, the 2.7 ecoboost also makes 8% more torque and 79% more horsepower than the 2.8 Duramax using 2018 specs for both. Using fuel prices I saw in Georgia I saw yesterday on I-75 (2.75 gas, 3.39 diesel) diesel costs 23% more than gas. Plus, the Duramax needs DEF. The F150 2.7 is also rated to tow 7,500-8,100 pounds depending on configuration. To top it all off, the 2.8 Duramax is a $3,700 option while the 2.7 Ecoboost is a $1,000 option. So my point that small diesels have lost their advantage still stands. | |||
|
| Member |
Totally agree. Paying 40 grand for a diesel Colorado makes no sense any way you look at it. And I don't want anything to do with a turbo 4 in a truck especially when Chevy makes such a great V8. I'd rather have a 5.3 working at 50% capacity than a turbo 4 working at 100% capacity... for durability purposes alone. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 4 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024