Chevy Duramax Turbo Diesel |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | |
1tulip
Groupie Joined: 21 Feb 2015 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 44 |
Topic: Chevy Duramax Turbo Diesel Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 10:14pm |
It may be premature to ask this... the engine was introduced last year in the Chevy Colorado and maybe not many rpod owners have tried towing with one. However, Car and Driver and Kelly Blue Book are both raving about how it tows 7000 pounds, and develops 369 lb-ft of peak torque at 2000 rpm. It's rated at only 181 hp, (which sounds lame...) but they say it tows like nobody's business and was specifically envisioned for this purpose. (Being as how there is no other mid-sized truck that can come close.) By comparison the V6 gasoline version in the same truck delivers its 383 lb-ft peak torque at 4100 rpm.
Downside is that it is not exactly a fire breather in the acceleration department. But I have a Subaru turbo (WRX) if I'm interested in getting between stoplights in a big rush. What do more experienced rpod owners think?
|
|
kylekai
Senior Member Joined: 06 Aug 2014 Location: San Diego Online Status: Offline Posts: 139 |
Posted: 15 Nov 2015 at 11:12pm |
I owned a 2011 Chevy Silverado 2500 with a Duramax diesel, and used it to tow my 2015 RPOD 179 which I bought a year ago. The Chevy worked great for the first 20K miles, and then things started going wrong. So wrong that it ruined a couple of vacation trips while towing the RPOD. Most of the issues were covered under warranty, but they were problems that I felt should not have existed.
About six months ago I decided to get rid of the Chevy and buy a new smaller truck, like a RAM EcoDiesel. When I saw the Chevy Colorado with a Duramax, I thought maybe I should look into it as well. During one of the many times my Silverado was in the shop, I asked the head mechanic why is my truck so trouble-prone. He said the 2011 was the first year for a major model change, and the first year production tends to have a lot of issues. Each successive year has less problems. So I asked if he thought that'd be true with the new Chevy Colorado and the Duramax engine. He said absolutely, since it's the first model year. I ended up buying a 2016 RAM 1500 EcoDiesel. I really like the truck, it's the 3rd production year, it's the right size, and gets close to 30 MPG. This is just my opinion and how I saw things. I think you're wise to research your purchase. Good luck! |
|
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 |
|
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 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 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! |
|
techntrek
Admin Group - pHp Joined: 29 Jul 2009 Location: MD Online Status: Offline Posts: 9059 |
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.
|
|
Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ Pod instruction manual
|
|
Guests
Guest Group |
Posted: 17 Nov 2015 at 7:53am |
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: 9059 |
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. |
|
Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ Pod instruction manual
|
|
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 |
|
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |