2023 Colorado/Canyon 2.7 Turbo EPA fuel mileage ratings released.

Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
10,351
Location
Illinois

I don't know. I'm honestly a bit disappointed. Maybe I was expecting too much.

1677786429334.jpg
 
We'll see real world. My 21 escalade is supposed to average 17 but i regularly get just under 21 and that's considering i shut off auto stop start. With it on i get almost 23. And i don't hypermile or drive under the limit. I'm usually +5 on the speed limit. Though i don't accelerate hard so maybe that helps. The best mpg i can get out of it is at 37mph, it averages about 33mpg at that speed.
 
A 4WD truck is generally going to get poorer fuel mileage.
My 2020 F-150 (2WD) averages 24 mpg on winter blend and 26 mpg on summer blend.

New two wheel drive trucks up here are rarely seen anymore. Dealers kept new two wheel drive trucks on the lot until around 2010, and then that was it.

If you do find one that is two wheel drive, it is a 1/2 ton, regular cab , 8' box... in white.

There are 132 new Silverado trucks within 100 miles. 130 of those are 4x4's.
 
New two wheel drive trucks up here are rarely seen anymore. Dealers kept new two wheel drive trucks on the lot until around 2010, and then that was it.

If you do find one that is two wheel drive, it is a 1/2 ton, regular cab , 8' box... in white.

There are 132 new Silverado trucks within 100 miles. 130 of those are 4x4's.
And, most are probably crew cabs, with 5’ beds.
 
My Ranger generally gets about 23 hand calculated if I drive like a human being, less if I hustle, maybe 20-21 if I drive it like I tend to drive the Acura. I have done better, but that's on a highway in traffic traveling around 55-60, in which case I've seen as good as 26 over a pretty good stretch. Mine is a 2wd though, so less driveline drag, so the Chevy numbers seem about right.

Can't fight physics. Always going to take a certain amount of fuel to move a barn door through the air.
 
We'll see real world. My 21 escalade is supposed to average 17 but i regularly get just under 21 and that's considering i shut off auto stop start. With it on i get almost 23. And i don't hypermile or drive under the limit. I'm usually +5 on the speed limit. Though i don't accelerate hard so maybe that helps. The best mpg i can get out of it is at 37mph, it averages about 33mpg at that speed.
What ratio rear end do you have?
 
Just topped mine up with 250 miles driven. Includes a trip to downtown ATL from my place and back, (60 miles one way) and the rest back and forth to work (12 miles one way, county roads). 23.9 MPG.

I suspect the 2.7 will be right in that ballpark.
 
The more I read about the new Colorado/Canyon, the more happy I am I didn't wait for it.
My folks had a Canyona couple years ago and it was an electical nightmare. The air, heater, doorlocks and electric windows would quit at random times and stay off for hours. It was at the dealer a number of times and they could never trace the problem. Dad was 80 years old and had to get rid of it as he was tired of no heat in the middle of winter.
 
Horsepower is horsepower. Smaller displacement engines with forced induction may make more horsepower per liter but 300 horsepower regardless of displacement simply requires a minimum amount of fuel/air to make it. Sure, there may be some differences in efficiency but they're not huge and the end result is smaller boosted engines making the same power as larger naturally aspirated engines with only small increases in mpg.
 
Last edited:
My 98 S-10 delivers those numbers. Sure it makes less power, but it’s more than adequate.
 
Horsepower is horsepower. Smaller displacement engines with forced induction may make more horsepower per liter but 300 horsepower regardless of displacement simply requires a minimum amount of fuel/air to make it. Sure, there may be some differences in efficiency but they're not huge and the end result is smaller boosted engines making the same power as larger naturally aspirated engines with only small increases in mpg.
Right. It’s just the reality that you don’t need it very often if at all, ever.

The SFC of the small engine under no boost may be better across the board too, but agreed, you don’t save much fuel by playing sfc games, you save it by reducing load.
 
My 98 S-10 delivers those numbers. Sure it makes less power, but it’s more than adequate.
Quick look—1998 S10 curb is 3k to 3,200? this newer truck lists 4,200 to 4,900. iirc yours is rcsb, albeit an iron lump 4.3, but on the lower end. Newer truck probably has more tire drag and wind drag if I had to guess.

But yes, we seem to not doing any better than the past, mpg is stuck at a stalemate.
 
My 98 S-10 delivers those numbers. Sure it makes less power, but it’s more than adequate.
Agreed. My 1998 Chevy K1500 reg cab, short box w/ 4.3L and 4L60E would easily get that.

I'm sure the 2.7T has more scoots to it, but it so ironic that you need to use fuel to maintain emission compliance. Things haven't progressed average MPG wise in light trucks in 30yrs.
 
My 98 S-10 delivers those numbers. Sure it makes less power, but it’s more than adequate.
S-10’s are great little trucks. I’ve got a 4.3 2001 2wd, 3.08 gears, 4L60e transmission. Mild engine work and tune. Still gets 28mpg on highway and can cruise easily with the rest of traffic with the taller gears.
 
Back
Top