Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
techntrek
Admin Group - pHp
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Location: MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9062
|
Topic: Chevy Duramax Turbo Diesel Posted: 18 Nov 2015 at 6:15pm |
I have a lot of tests to do, since the programmer also has an economy tune (for commuting, not towing) which I haven't tried yet, and some adjustments to the transmission I haven't tried yet.
|
|
 |
Guests
Guest Group
|
Posted: 18 Nov 2015 at 5:59am |
Originally posted by techntrek
Don't upgrade to Windows 10. Starting with 7 they started introducing "big brother" technology, adding more with 8, and now 10 basically sends everything you do back to Momma.
I have a programmer for my truck and I could turn AFM off, I should some time to see what effect it has on the mpg. I don't like it when it kicks in, it has a noticeable vibration. I understand that has been solved with the newer version of the system.
I will be interested to see how that aluminum body holds up for the F-150. I have heard good things about the Eco-Boost. |
Thanks for the tip on Windows 10. If you do try to run without AFM, I, for one, would be interested in the results. The only comparison that I can make is to a prior 1992 GMC Sierra - 5.7L (350ci)TBI, 4speedOD, 3.42 rear end. If I behaved myself, I could get 20mpg on the highway. Usually more in the 18-19 range. I've only had the present truck on the highway for one short drive, without towing. I got about 21mpg. It is the 5.3L, 6speed and 3.42 rear gears.
I need to correct myself on a prior comment. In reading some articles, one (Motor Trend - maybe?) said of the turbo diesel - it is "a GM motor produced in Thailand". So, maybe not "sourced", as I stated. It further said that the motor has been available in the international market (non-USA) for a number of years.
Also, it appears, in order to get the turbo diesel, one must purchase one of the higher end models (think LT crew cab package, or better). It looks as though one will need to take roughly 40K with them to get one. The only incentive I could find is 3.9 financing. In checking inventory within 20 miles (of me), there were no turbo diesels and not many gasoline versions on the lots (about half of those were the 4cyl variation).
|
 |
ToolmanJohn
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Apr 2014
Location: Connecticut
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Posted: 17 Nov 2015 at 10:40pm |
With nearly 400 lb ft of torque it will tow great. And it will be quick too. But don't expect to win any races when towing. Torque is king when towing. Turbo diesel is lower rpm at any given speed and load, so fuel economy will be better than a gas version too.
I would wait a couple years, and watch forums for that particular engine to see what the reliability is like.
|
2017 ATC 7X20 Custom Toy Hauler
2013 R-Pod 177 (SOLD)
2013 VW Touareg TDI
|
 |
techntrek
Admin Group - pHp
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Location: MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9062
|
Posted: 17 Nov 2015 at 9:44am |
Don't upgrade to Windows 10. Starting with 7 they started introducing "big brother" technology, adding more with 8, and now 10 basically sends everything you do back to Momma.
I have a programmer for my truck and I could turn AFM off, I should some time to see what effect it has on the mpg. I don't like it when it kicks in, it has a noticeable vibration. I understand that has been solved with the newer version of the system.
I will be interested to see how that aluminum body holds up for the F-150. I have heard good things about the Eco-Boost.
|
|
 |
Guests
Guest Group
|
Posted: 17 Nov 2015 at 7:53am |
Originally posted by techntrek
Nice write-up Charlie.David, regarding: "<span style="line-height: 15.2727px; : rgb251, 251, 253;">5. The Chevy small block has been around since 1955 - no new bugs to work out and it enjoys a solid reputation." True for many parts of the engine, but not for the new tech. The small blocks with AFM from 2007 to about 2012 had big problems with the hydraulic lifters failing. They redesigned the oil flow which hopefully has solved the problem.</span> |
Please don't get the impression that I am nominating "The General" for sainthood. That thought would never cross my mind...they have had their issues. You talking to a guy who once owned a 72 Vega GT - 4 replaced cylinder heads, the entire motor twice, annual rust repair & repainting... on and on. It was a fun car to drive when it ran. (the operative words there are "when it ran") I've come to learn that when they say "New" or "Redesigned", that is "code speak" meaning "We've monkeyed with it and there is at least a 50/50 chance that we've screwed it up...do you feel lucky?"
I stand by my position on the basic small block design. The problem comes when they "improve" on it. This always makes me cringe. My take on AFM (Active Fuel Management) is that, while a nice science project, it way over-complicates things for darn little gain. I would prefer it not be there.
Getting back to the original post, if memory serves, this turbo diesel is not made by GM. It is sourced (I'll have to look this up again). All things considered, personally, I would take a "wait and see" position on the diesel Colorado. But, then again, I have not "upgraded" to Windows 10 yet, either. If nothing else, the Vega taught me to let others be the "lab rats".
I've heard that the Colorados, in general, are selling as fast as they make them. I would feel ""safer" with the gasoline version but, again, it may be marginal in towing.
|
 |
techntrek
Admin Group - pHp
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Location: MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9062
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 7:53pm |
Nice write-up Charlie.
David, regarding: "5. The Chevy small block has been around since 1955 - no new bugs to work out and it enjoys a solid reputation." True for many parts of the engine, but not for the new tech. The small blocks with AFM from 2007 to about 2012 had big problems with the hydraulic lifters failing. They redesigned the oil flow which hopefully has solved the problem.
|
|
 |
Guests
Guest Group
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 6:42pm |
Thank you Charlie. I understand 100% about the Tacoma and yes, the Silverado does take up some garage space. I think Chevy would have done better to go with just a tad larger turbo-diesel and a tad smaller on the overall size of the truck. Side by side - there's not a huge difference between the 2. (Maybe the same size as an Avalanche)
You will not hear me knocking the F-150s. Historically, they been great trucks. Even my Dad (deceased), if asked, would say this - and he retired from GM (that's why I'm a GM guy). I'm curious about their new all aluminum truck. I've heard good and not so good about it. I wonder, if over time, there might be some issues with differing metals (galvanic). It can't be 100% aluminum...gotta be some nuts & bolts somewhere. When it first came out, their "Eco-Boost" twin turbo was getting a lot of attention but, I have not heard much lately.
I parked next to one of the full size Toyota trucks one day - it made my Silverado look small! I don't know much about Ram (Dodge). I can only say that I have experienced the 5.7 Hemi in a Charger and it scats like a scalded dog!
Anyway, thanks for all of the great posts.....keep 'em coming!
|
 |
CharlieM
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Location: N. Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1797
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 5:57pm |
David,
I agree, but the full sized truck is just too big for me. That's why I went with the Tacoma 4.0L with a TRD belt driven supercharger. Both are discontinued for 2016. Diesels have advantages such as better MPG and longer life, but they also cost more initially, for maintenance, and for repair. I'd better look at the F-150s now before they make 2.0L the biggest available engine
|
Charlie
Northern Colorado
OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD
PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD
|
 |
Guests
Guest Group
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 4:15pm |
Good job CharlieM.
I had been anticipating the production of this truck for over a year. Now that it is out, and the specifications are known, here is my take:
It is a sharp looking truck and would very likely do a fine job of towing a Pod (or something similar) BUT....
1. It is not much smaller than the full size Silverado.
2. Because they are new and the demand is high, we probably would not get much of a discount/incentives, etc. when buying. We would likely pay more for the Colorado than a full size Silverado.
3. The 5.3L V8 (Silverado)has a lot more horsepower (nearly double) and a little more torque.
4. I haven't run the numbers but, diesel fuel is more expensive per gallon than gasoline.
5. The Chevy small block has been around since 1955 - no new bugs to work out and it enjoys a solid reputation.
If I were buying today, I'd look at the diesel Colorado. However, I strongly suspect that I would drive home in a Silverado. I bought my present truck just when the 2014s were starting to hit the lots. Out the door I was at a little less than 26K (incentives + dickering) - for what I call a nicely optioned truck. I doubt you could get into any of the Colorados (diesel or gas) for that coin. IMHO the gasoline models would be under powered. You could make the V6 work but,...why? The 5.3 will do anything you'll likely ask of it. I've yet to find/need it's potential.
|
 |
CharlieM
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Location: N. Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1797
|
Posted: 16 Nov 2015 at 3:17pm |
At the risk of opening the floodgates of previous
discussions, let me add a few points on torque and horsepower. There have been
many posts on this subject here and on most other RV forums. There is a perception
that torque is more important than horsepower. This may be true if the only
objective is to move the camper from stopped. Torque is a measure of force available. For any given engine torque, the
final torque (force) available at the wheels is a function of transmission setting,
rear end gearing, and tire diameter. That said, any engine can move any trailer
but maybe not very fast. Higher torque is nice, but not the determining
function.
Horsepower is the ability to move something against a
resistance (like gravity or wind) over time. The heavier the trailer, the
steeper the hill, and the higher the speed the more horsepower will be
required. It takes a certain amount of horsepower to haul a given trailer up a
given hill at a given speed. If you want to maintain 60 MPH on a 6% grade it
takes horsepower. If you are satisfied with creeping up the hill less
horsepower is required. In both cases the torque requirement is the same.
So, engine horsepower is more important than torque for trailer towing.
However, newer, smaller engines develop their horsepower at very high RPMs. I’ve
seen some small engines with their horsepower specified at 6000+ RPM. All in an
attempt to meet Government mandated fuel efficiency. Not good for reliability
and engine life. Given a choice, higher horsepower rated at lower RPMs is
better. And if the engine develops a high torque at a lower RPM that’s better
too, but not at the expense of ultimate horsepower. Keep in mind: Final wheel
torque can be adjusted by gearing. Downshift to a lower gear. The ability to
maintain highway speeds against wind and grades is built into the engine at
the factory.
|
Charlie
Northern Colorado
OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD
PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD
|
 |