Topic: Comparison Test: 2016 Chevrolet Colorado vs GMC Canyon Diesel vs Toyota Tacoma

[Autos_Editor]

Small but mighty ' a compact 3-way.
Read More...

[Benhaze]

I was expecting a much more significant fuel consumption difference between the Canyon diesel and the others while towing; it is a bit disappointing.

Still, it seems the better overall driving experience may justify the the diesel engine premium.

[Solstice2006]

Great write up.  Very thorough.  I think many will be surprised by the slight difference between the diesel and gas fuel economy numbers.  Less than 1L/100km difference when empty.  I know it's not all about fuel efficiency.  But even if the diesel was available across the entire lineup, I can't justify the $4000 difference for that little savings.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

[drive67]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

A truck you measure performance on how it handles work not 0 to 100 km/h. You have to drive a diesel to get it. You can get performance parts to get better numbers out of a diesel, from factory it is set up for a quit efficient ride.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

A truck you measure performance on how it handles work not 0 to 100 km/h. You have to drive a diesel to get it. You can get performance parts to get better numbers out of a diesel, from factory it is set up for a quit efficient ride.

Most people are going to use these as cars. Their performance should be judged in those terms.

Fleets are going to get the cheapest version they can get away with.

[tooscoops]

meh.. i agree... a truck's "performance" is different than a car's... i'd tack the ability to haul more as a part of performance, as well as it's off-road chops hence the fact that they say it can't keep up. but that is more categorizing the stats over the numbers themselves...

on the taco page, it shows a better fuel rating with 1000 lbs when compared to empty.... mix up or just happened that way?

anyways... i don't know... if i was getting a smaller truck, i'd be a taco guy. doesn't just seem like a miniature version of the bigger guys, it seems to be a different aim.

[drive67]

Nice written article with a great deal of information.
If you drive a lot of kilometers or tow the diesel makes sense. The Tacoma has the advantage of having a manual transmission throughout their line up while the GMC twins only has it on a 2 wheel drive base model. I would disagree  on the comment that younger drivers will like the Tacoma better. There is more brand loyalty with trucks where there are generations of GMC owners and a reputation of trouble free ownership with the Tacoma.
The size of these mid size trucks are the same as the old GMC 1500 or Ford F150 with the cost there with the full sized truck.

[drive67]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

A truck you measure performance on how it handles work not 0 to 100 km/h. You have to drive a diesel to get it. You can get performance parts to get better numbers out of a diesel, from factory it is set up for a quit efficient ride.

Most people are going to use these as cars. Their performance should be judged in those terms.

Fleets are going to get the cheapest version they can get away with.

A truck article (same has the 4 day test drive of the Canyon) comments on how fast can you get to 100. The Golf R and Civic Si  comments on storage, control knobs and the spare Tire.
Toronto there is more of a go go attitude, in Calgary I wonder what shade of green are they waiting for. Most people do not try to get to 100 as fast as they can more like an easy 15 to 20 seconds. The question should be how smooth does the transmission deliver the power and gear down that you can pass.

[ltruong]

Nice review!  Now where is the Nissan Frontiers 2.8 Cummins.?....6spd manual come on you can do it!    I guess I still believe in Santa.

[blotter]

good article.

just an interesting observation on the towing, I see it was done with a flatbed and a block of concrete.
(which is better than no towing test)   This still gives pretty good base number (fuel) to compare.  But I'd love to see how they'd all perform with a 4,000 lbs travel trailer and that additional wind resistance.   This is where I'd expect the diesel to build a bigger gap on fuel numbers.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

A truck you measure performance on how it handles work not 0 to 100 km/h. You have to drive a diesel to get it. You can get performance parts to get better numbers out of a diesel, from factory it is set up for a quit efficient ride.

Most people are going to use these as cars. Their performance should be judged in those terms.

Fleets are going to get the cheapest version they can get away with.

A truck article (same has the 4 day test drive of the Canyon) comments on how fast can you get to 100. The Golf R and Civic Si  comments on storage, control knobs and the spare Tire.
Toronto there is more of a go go attitude, in Calgary I wonder what shade of green are they waiting for. Most people do not try to get to 100 as fast as they can more like an easy 15 to 20 seconds. The question should be how smooth does the transmission deliver the power and gear down that you can pass.

If someone makes a statement like "it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy." some explanation is warranted.

With the highway fuel numbers (9.2L/100km and 8.2L/100km) between the V6 and the oil burner, that works out to $200/year in savings for someone driving 20,000/year and using $1/L for both fuels. So the diesel is much more expensive, much slower and has only marginally better fuel consumption. I'm not seeing the "it doesn't come close" part.

[drive67]

Nice review!  Now where is the Nissan Frontiers 2.8 Cummins.?....6spd manual come on you can do it!    I guess I still believe in Santa.

At the Nissan dealership they still think it will be coming but only in an automatic transmission set for max fuel efficiency. Import a manual from Europe with free trade.

[Ex-airbalancer]

This statements says it all
It’s noisy on-road, moaning and groaning while towing a load, and is a lot less refined than the competitors, inside and out. Where the GM twins have a quiet, comfortable and “mature” cabin, the Tacoma’s is playful and modern and probably wouldn’t appeal to the older buyer.

Drive 2 hours to get to the job site,  work all day, drive home

Who the hell wants a noisy fack truck !

By the way I don't like the GMs either 

How would these trucks compare to Ford /Ram/ GM with a 6 cylinder engines

[drive67]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

A truck you measure performance on how it handles work not 0 to 100 km/h. You have to drive a diesel to get it. You can get performance parts to get better numbers out of a diesel, from factory it is set up for a quit efficient ride.

Most people are going to use these as cars. Their performance should be judged in those terms.

Fleets are going to get the cheapest version they can get away with.

A truck article (same has the 4 day test drive of the Canyon) comments on how fast can you get to 100. The Golf R and Civic Si  comments on storage, control knobs and the spare Tire.
Toronto there is more of a go go attitude, in Calgary I wonder what shade of green are they waiting for. Most people do not try to get to 100 as fast as they can more like an easy 15 to 20 seconds. The question should be how smooth does the transmission deliver the power and gear down that you can pass.

If someone makes a statement like "it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy." some explanation is warranted.

With the highway fuel numbers (9.2L/100km and 8.2L/100km) between the V6 and the oil burner, that works out to $200/year in savings for someone driving 20,000/year and using $1/L for both fuels. So the diesel is much more expensive, much slower and has only marginally better fuel consumption. I'm not seeing the "it doesn't come close" part.

The comment "it doesn't come close" seems off with the numbers of just over 10 for gas and 9 for diesel. 4 day test drive and average of 8.7 was reported real world numbers for the Canyon gas was between 13-15 so the 10 is really great. Not only 20,000 a year you drive but city driving , short drives are not the best for diesel engines/injectors. Oil burner is stuck in North Americans minds from the 1980's GMC diesels at the same time Mercedes Benz had a great diesel.
I drive on my personal vehicle over 50,000 km a year and real world numbers I would expect to see a 4L per 100km deference.

[Ex-airbalancer]

I do not believe the general public remembers GM passenger Diesel engine , I was alive at that time  and no one talk about them than no one talking about them now

[mixmanmash]

I do not believe the general public remembers GM passenger Diesel engine , I was alive at that time  and no one talk about them than no one talking about them now

This.  Growing up, I had a neighbour with an Oldsmobile sedan with the 6.2L Diesel.

[ltruong]

I do not believe the general public remembers GM passenger Diesel engine , I was alive at that time  and no one talk about them than no one talking about them now

are you talking pre turbo era?

[EV-Light]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

^^^ surprising huh? I keep saying diesels are weak sauce. If one is looking for better efficiency and longevity, it may be the right choice...but don't come tell me that performance is why one chose a diesel because modern gas engines are much better at handling any day to day duty without any fuss.

[PJ]

it doesn’t come close to the the 2.8L Duramax Diesel in the Canyon when it comes to performance or fuel economy.

Wut?

0-60 (4x4 V6) 7.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4) 9.3sec
0-60 (4x4 I4 diesel) 10sec

^^^ surprising huh? I keep saying diesels are weak sauce. If one is looking for better efficiency and longevity, it may be the right choice...but don't come tell me that performance is why one chose a diesel because modern gas engines are much better at handling any day to day duty without any fuss.

It's actually the other way around.  In normal day to day driving diesels are better.  Their power is low in the rev range where you spend your time.  Watch your tach sometime.   0-60 times are fun for magazine comparisons but people rarely drive with their foot pinned to the floor in real life. 

If I get some spare time I'll see if I can find a dyno comparison of the 2 Chevy engines.