The 4 Cylinder Future | Chevy Colorado ZR2 | savagegeese

rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de to Cars - For Car Enthusiasts@lemmy.world – 18 points – The 4 Cylinder Future | Chevy Colorado ZR2
youtube.com

Opinion: Neat technical details, neat truck, but I don't know if I could get over virtual headlight controls.

19

I can't imagine paying $58,000 for a 4-cylinder truck. I can't imagine paying $58,000 for a truck at all unless it was a work truck for business.

You say "four cylinder" like its some kind of gutless junk. This turbo 4 puts past V8s to shame, and gets better fuel economy doing it. Sure new car prices have risen a lot, but I'd rather have this than an outdated V8.

I daily drive a turbo 4 and it's great, but for a truck I prefer simpler and higher displacement.

So a big block chevy from 1973 that gets 9MPG and makes 200HP?

Why compare a 1973 engine to a modern one? Chevy isn't installing 1973 engines since about 1973.

Because you said you prefer a 'simple V8' engine. There's nothing simple about their modern V8s like the LS style engine, so I can't imagine you're referring to those.

Tell us you know nothing about engines, without telling us you know nothing about engines.

Explain to the folks at home why a 4 cylinder turbo truck is better than a V8.

Because this isn't 1984 anymore and turbo technology isn't some new fangled thing. This particular turbo 4 is extremely robust and has gobs of torque down low. Lower than most V8s which is exactly what you need for towing. Plus when you aren't carrying a heavy load or deep into the boost, you should see fuel economy that is considerably better than what a larger engine would typically get.

I totally agree that modern turbo 4s can be impressive engines,. But I expect you will need to be in boost a lot more often to move such a large vehicle with big tires. The MPG for this truck is 17 city and 19 highway, which is not great for a midsize. This would indicate to me that the weight and large tires are going to be keeping the engine in boost more often.

Boost is not an on/off switch. The difference between full boost and full power, versus partial boost and far better fuel economy is rather huge. And a vehicle is usually (near) idling along at lower RPMs and only using a fraction of its total torque the vast, vast majority of its time. Takes only roughly 20 HP to main speed on a highway.

And yet this trucks MPG numbers do not reflect any of that. Aside from that what would the advantage of the turbo 4 be?

And th3 base version (i.e. not massive tires) of the Colorado gets 20/25 MPG, which is better that the 2023 Toyota Tacoma which has a larger naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 and only makes 278 HP and 265 lb-ft of torque max. The Colorado maxes out at 310 HP and a whopping 430 lb ft of torque.

I've got a car inept GF, and she once went way to long without an oil change. Her Chevy doesn't have a turbo, but I was warned that newer Chevy engines with turbos are way more sensitive about oil changes.

What are the odds that the turbo and or engine blow, if some drives this 2k past and oil change?

Genuinely curious here, not trying to be that guy.

No way 2k will kill it instantly, I think a good metric might be seeing how well the 2.7T is doing in the full-sizers but I'm not familiar how it's doing over there.

It's a weird criteria for judging an engine really. Its true that turbocharged engines are more demanding on oil, but that's factored into the design and oil requirements. 2k miles past an oil change is not going to blow up an engine, and every GM car has an oil life reminder, so I'm not sure that's a problem.

There's a whole lotta people who buy overpriced trucks as luxury daily drivers instead of tools. Seems to me like 60k is the more affordable end of that scale.

Whole lots of ignorance if the number of cylinders and not the power and torque output is what would stop someone from buying a truck.