Pickups with 31 mpg - Page 2 - Escape Trailer Owners Community

Go Back   Escape Trailer Owners Community > Escape Tech > Towing and Hitching
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 12-06-2015, 03:58 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Trailer: 2016 Escape 21
Posts: 50
The issue I have with the Chevy Colorado is that I can buy the V-6 gas with the SAME equipment for around $6,000 less! That buys a LOT of gas!
__________________

Porsche Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 04:20 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
PGDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southern Alberta, Alberta
Trailer: 2015 Escape 5.0TA
Posts: 1,436
Pickups with 31 mpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche Pilot View Post
In the case of towing the torque is what you should be looking at. The Chevy Colorado has 369 ft-lbs of torque at just 2000 rpm. To put it perspective the 5.3L Chevy V-8 has only slightly more torque (383 ft-lb).

Or the 6.2 has 420HP and 460 for torque.
Have towed our 5.0TA with both the 5.3 and 6.2 and there is no comparison. The 6.2 also gets better fuel economy then the 5.3.

Cheers
Doug

__________________

__________________
Doug & Eileen
2015 Escape 5.0TA
2015 GMC Sierra Crew 4X4 6.2 8 speed
PGDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 04:26 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
padlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southwick, Massachusetts
Trailer: 5.0 TA #6, 2012 F150 EB
Posts: 3,823
The newer transmissions have a lot to do with mpg, my 5.3L GMC with the 4 speed was pretty bad on gas.
__________________
Happy Motoring
Bob
padlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 05:30 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Patandlinda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Ventura County, California
Trailer: 2013 19 Escape
Posts: 4,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubal View Post
The additional purchase cost and the cost of operation of a tow vehicle with a diesel engine could easily offset the mpg savings.
Oil changes are expensive on diesel too . Pat
Patandlinda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 05:48 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
rbryan4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Trailer: 2015 19 "Past Tents", 2015 F150 Ecoboost
Posts: 7,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by padlin View Post
The newer transmissions have a lot to do with mpg, my 5.3L GMC with the 4 speed was pretty bad on gas.
Yep, the transmission is definitely part of it. I'm happy with the EcoBoost V6, but the new diesels are definitely interesting. I'd suspect the 31 MPG on the Colorado NOT Towing would change very rapidly to under 20 WHEN Towing.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 05:59 PM   #16
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
Trailer: 2016 Escape 21
Posts: 50
if you look at the numbers ie the 420 ft-lbs of torque your have verses the 369 ft-lbs in the much lighter Chevy I bet the performance would be surprisingly close.
Porsche Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 06:25 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
PGDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Southern Alberta, Alberta
Trailer: 2015 Escape 5.0TA
Posts: 1,436
Pickups with 31 mpg

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche Pilot View Post
if you look at the numbers ie the 420 ft-lbs of torque your have verses the 369 ft-lbs in the much lighter Chevy I bet the performance would be surprisingly close.

That's 420 HP and 460 ft-lbs
Forgot to mention we found one with the NHT, RPO (package) so you get 3.42 gearing instead of 3.23.

Cheers
Doug
__________________
Doug & Eileen
2015 Escape 5.0TA
2015 GMC Sierra Crew 4X4 6.2 8 speed
PGDriver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 07:17 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 9,041
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche Pilot View Post
In the case of towing the torque is what you should be looking at. The Chevy Colorado has 369 ft-lbs of torque at just 2000 rpm. To put it perspective the 5.3L Chevy V-8 has only slightly more torque (383 ft-lb).
You can have as much torque as you want, if you don't care how slow you're going. The smallest Honda lawnmower engine (GCV160 - 4.4 hp from 0.15 L displacement) with 100:1 gearing would put out 690 lb-ft of torque... at a crawling pace. To move a load up a grade you need torque and speed... and by 3400 rpm that little Chevy diesel is well down in torque (to 280 lb-ft) and maxed out in speed so you can't downshift to get more torque to the wheels. The physical reality is that you need power; the 2.8 Duramax may be more than enough, but there's nothing magic about the torque.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche Pilot View Post
The issue I have with the Chevy Colorado is that I can buy the V-6 gas with the SAME equipment for around $6,000 less! That buys a LOT of gas!
Excellent point. One would need to tow an enormous distance to ever make the diesel pay... especially with a higher fuel price per volume and more expensive maintenance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by padlin View Post
The newer transmissions have a lot to do with mpg, my 5.3L GMC with the 4 speed was pretty bad on gas.
I agree. To be most effective and most efficient any engine needs to run at the right speed. With only four ratios, the engine will often be way off of where it should be (either too slow for power or too fast for economy, depending on conditions). Having become accustomed to 5-speeds (and now 6-speeds) in our other vehicles, I find the 4-speed in our (Ford chassis) motorhome to be aggravating.

The 2016 Colorado has a six-speed transmission - the automatic is presumably the 6L50. The 2015 Silverado uses the similar (but stronger) six-speed 6L80, with the same gear ratios, or (in some equipment combinations only) the eight-speed 8L90.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryan4 View Post
I'd suspect the 31 MPG on the Colorado NOT Towing would change very rapidly to under 20 WHEN Towing.
I agree. Robert's F-150 with 2.7 EcoBoost performs well and has piles of low-speed torque, but not surprisingly saw a big jump in fuel consumption with the trailer attached, just like other vehicles of similar size and engine size. More work takes more fuel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche Pilot View Post
if you look at the numbers ie the 420 ft-lbs of torque your have verses the 369 ft-lbs in the much lighter Chevy I bet the performance would be surprisingly close.
I don't think so. At the same road speed, the EcoTec3 gas V8 engine could run faster (lower gearing) and put much more torque to the wheels than the 2.8L Duramax diesel; if they were both ideally geared and compared running at their respective torque peaks, either V8 would be running over twice as fast and putting out more than twice as much torque to the driveshaft as the little Duramax. I'm not talking about screaming high speeds here - only 4100 rpm for the V8s. A 5.3 at 4100 rpm will put out far more torque to the driveshaft than the 2.8L Duramax even with the Duramax wound up to its 3400 rpm peak.

Turbocharging is an effective substitute for displacement, but not effective enough to make up for a more than 2-to-1 ratio of displacement. The 2.8L Duramax looks to be about comparable to the 4.3L EcoTec3 V6 in performance... but the Duramax should use less fuel.

While the Colorado is smaller than the Silverado, there is not nearly as much size difference as there was with the previous Colorado. Comparing 6'-box double-cab 4x4 auto-trans examples, the Colorado weighs well over 4500 pounds (I only found 2015 gas specs) to the Silverado's 5300 pounds. Add a trailer and the weight difference is even less significant.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 07:51 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Iowa Dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Eastern Iowa, Iowa
Trailer: 2013 Escape 21 pulled by a 2010 Highlander Anderson hitch,
Posts: 2,378
My Dad lived by some things he felt were truisms. He push started tour busses with four cylinder cj2a jeeps, and race cars too. "It's all in the gears" he would say. And when I admired the big gas sucking V8s of the late 50s and early 60s he'd laugh and remark, "that one will pass anything but a gas station" Driving loaded duece and a halfs filled with 5 gallon cans of gasoline on the Autobahn at night without lights during the big war gave his remarks credibility with his impressionable sons.
Dave
Iowa Dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2015, 07:55 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Jim Bennett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Trailer: 2017 Escape 5.0 TA
Posts: 11,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche Pilot View Post
The issue I have with the Chevy Colorado is that I can buy the V-6 gas with the SAME equipment for around $6,000 less! That buys a LOT of gas!
You also have to consider that a diesel engine outlasts a gas engine by a lot, all dependant on lots of variables, like type of driving (towing, highway, etc). I recently read of someone with a 2002 F-350 with a 7.3 litre Power Stroke diesel, who made it past the 1 million mile mark with the original engine, though almost all highway miles. Of course that is not likely the norm.

Another big consideration is resale. Equivalent trucks with diesel engines out price those with gas engines on the used market by a considerable amount.
__________________

__________________
2017 Escape 5.0 TA
2015 Ford F150 Lariat 3.5L EcoBoost
2009 Escape 19 (previous)
“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” — Abraham Lincoln
Jim Bennett is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off






» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.