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

[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.

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.

I doubt there would be a 4L difference between the highway fuel consumption numbers. A person that beats EPA numbers in a diesel will also beat the EPA numbers in a gasoline powered vehicle.

Typical Canadian drivers put on roughly 24k kms a year. A high mileage driver will benefit from a diesel, but even at 50k kms a year, the payback is almost 4 years and that's not including the higher maintenance costs of a diesel engine.

This isn't the 1980s is right. Back then diesels had turbos, multipoint fuel injection and minimal emissions controls, when gasoline cars were just changing over to single port fuel injection and were still suffering from the big changes in emissions controls which started in the 1970s. That gave diesels a big advantage in efficiency.

[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

^^^ 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.

That's mostly the difference between a normally aspirated engine and a turbocharged engine.

[johngenx]

Diesels used to last a lot longer than gas engines thanks to the blocks and other bottom end parts being so overbuilt to handle the very high compression ratios.  Today, modern gas engines last just as long as diesels.  All engines have benefited from cleaner fuels, better oils, better FI systems, and so on, and today I would expect any quality gas or diesel engine to give a minimum of 400K of reliable service, probably longer with good maintenance.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Can I post this now? 

[ltruong]

Can I post this now? 

That is for ground clearance.  Come on it's a Toyota 

[blotter]

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.

I didn't like that blanket statement.  Or at least I feel it's a blanket statement. 
My truck, FWIT, doesn't moan and groan while cruising down the highway, towing or empty.
If i'm taking off to merge or making an aggressive pass, yes, it will groan.   I don't really consider it moan.
The truck doesn't really feel like it's struggling, it's moving along (hey it's not a race car) quite well with a mean growl.

Does it also growl when towing on the ups or when accelarating quickly.... yes... 

But it is pretty darn refined when simply cruising.


I also don't get the "mature" GM cabin.   Aside from a screen being there, the looks and knobs really don't seem too different than my dad's old 90s Sierra.   So maybe that's what "mature" means   
I honestly prefer the layout of my Taco, and by that, I prefer it from the GM Twins AND the NEW Taco.

[Noto]

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.

I didn't like that blanket statement.  Or at least I feel it's a blanket statement. 
My truck, FWIT, doesn't moan and groan while cruising down the highway, towing or empty.
If i'm taking off to merge or making an aggressive pass, yes, it will groan.   I don't really consider it moan.
The truck doesn't really feel like it's struggling, it's moving along (hey it's not a race car) quite well with a mean growl.

Does it also growl when towing on the ups or when accelarating quickly.... yes... 

But it is pretty darn refined when simply cruising.


I also don't get the "mature" GM cabin.   Aside from a screen being there, the looks and knobs really don't seem too different than my dad's old 90s Sierra.   So maybe that's what "mature" means   
I honestly prefer the layout of my Taco, and by that, I prefer it from the GM Twins AND the NEW Taco.

Great purchase, Blotter!

[Noto]

but people rarely drive with their foot pinned to the floor in real life. 

Depends on who you're referring to

[drive67]

I would have a hard time not buying the Taco.  I see so many old Taco's rolling around that I think the long term durability and resale value might swing my vote.  I suspect the GM twins are just as durable but pre conceived notions and all that.

Having owned a Tacoma can say trouble free driving. Having GMC in the fleet always little problems,  gas gauge not working, engine light comes on needs new sensor, ABS light comes on reset, traction control malfunction it all seems to deal with the electronics. The GMC trucks are ready to work but when you just take the Tacoma in for maintenance you get frustrated with computer problems.
Gas mileage seems off on the test.

From Toyota web site Tacoma
4 cylinder 12.4 city 10.2 Highway
6 cylinder 13.1 city 10.5 Highway

From GMC web site Canyon
4 cylinder  12.4 city 9 highway
6 cylinder 13.8 city 9.8 highway

Not real world numbers that ten to be higher.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

EPA numbers (L/100km):

Colorado V6 4x4 City 13.8   Highway 9.8 Combined 11.8
Tacoma V6 4x4 City 13.1   Highway 10.2 Combined 11.8

[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.

I didn't like that blanket statement.  Or at least I feel it's a blanket statement. 
My truck, FWIT, doesn't moan and groan while cruising down the highway, towing or empty.
If i'm taking off to merge or making an aggressive pass, yes, it will groan.   I don't really consider it moan.
The truck doesn't really feel like it's struggling, it's moving along (hey it's not a race car) quite well with a mean growl.

Does it also growl when towing on the ups or when accelarating quickly.... yes... 

But it is pretty darn refined when simply cruising.


I also don't get the "mature" GM cabin.   Aside from a screen being there, the looks and knobs really don't seem too different than my dad's old 90s Sierra.   So maybe that's what "mature" means   
I honestly prefer the layout of my Taco, and by that, I prefer it from the GM Twins AND the NEW Taco.

Maybe that Fack up on the new Taco 

[Ex-airbalancer]

Can I post this now? 

I cannot believed you lasted 24 posts 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Can I post this now? 

I cannot believed you lasted 24 posts 

I'm practising restraint!

[Cord]

Can I post this now? 

I've heard of breakover angle but that's ridiculous. 

[G.Bombay]

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

This. Personally I'd take a full size 1500 with a base v6. Likely just as good on fuel, more useful bed and probably save some cash on the purchase price too.

[neil]

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.

As of Saturday, when I drove past the Shell marque, Regular was 87.4, Diesel 97.9.  Diesel has been much higher than gas for a while now...

20k/year on the compression ignition is 1640 litres, 1840 for the sparker.    $1605.56 vs $1608.10  as of right now.  Less than $3 difference per year,   It would take 1500 years to pay for itself......before you factor the maintenance cost.... (resale value nothwithstanding of course)

[G.Bombay]

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.

As of Saturday, when I drove past the Shell marque, Regular was 87.4, Diesel 97.9.  Diesel has been much higher than gas for a while now...

20k/year on the compression ignition is 1640 litres, 1840 for the sparker.    $1605.56 vs $1608.10  as of right now.  Less than $3 difference per year,   It would take 1500 years to pay for itself......before you factor the maintenance cost.... (resale value nothwithstanding of course)

Diesel is cheaper in the summer and more expensive in the winter it's really a wash over the course of a year. Where I live both where 93.9 today.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

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.

As of Saturday, when I drove past the Shell marque, Regular was 87.4, Diesel 97.9.  Diesel has been much higher than gas for a while now...

20k/year on the compression ignition is 1640 litres, 1840 for the sparker.    $1605.56 vs $1608.10  as of right now.  Less than $3 difference per year,   It would take 1500 years to pay for itself......before you factor the maintenance cost.... (resale value nothwithstanding of course)

Absolutely. The price differential makes a huge impact on the cost/benefit.

I took monthly data for Regina for either 2014 or 2013 and over the course of the year the average worked out to within a few cents. There's no guaranty that that would hold up for other areas or other years.

[KD]

Can I post this now? 

That's the articulated dumpbox version.  Also handy for paralell parking. 

[PJ]

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.

As of Saturday, when I drove past the Shell marque, Regular was 87.4, Diesel 97.9.  Diesel has been much higher than gas for a while now...

20k/year on the compression ignition is 1640 litres, 1840 for the sparker.    $1605.56 vs $1608.10  as of right now.  Less than $3 difference per year,   It would take 1500 years to pay for itself......before you factor the maintenance cost.... (resale value nothwithstanding of course)

However not all of us live where you live.  In the Vancouver area regular was $1.24 this morning and diesel was $1.04.  20 cents a litre cheaper + significantly better mileage means for many people the fuel saving will off set the extra monthly payment for the Diesel engine.   Meaning you save money from day one.