Should the Chevy Colorado offer a V8?

[TBR]

Tom, what engines does GM have that make more power than the I5 and are already tuned for truck duty? I can only think of one 6-cylinder, the rest are V8s and we all know that the I6 is too long. Sounds like the logical choice is the 4.8l V8.

[Raghavan]

The H3 could really use a bigger engine. What about the 3.9l V6?

[TBR]

Tuned for more lowend torque it wouldn't have much more hp than the I5.

[Raghavan]

Tuned for more lowend torque it wouldn't have much more hp than the I5.

oh. But it would have more torque though, wouldn't it? That's what most PUT buyers are lookng for.

[TBR]

Not midsize truck buyers. And, GM needs to offer an engine that will allow the Colorado to at least keep up with the Frontier and Tacoma, for that they will need a V8 as the I6 won't fit and all of their V6s are either too weak or too expensive.

[Raghavan]

3.6l DOHC is too expensive, eh?

[TBR]

I would think so

[Raghavan]

Damn, looks like they're stuck with a V8 then.
BTW, where'd they get the I5 from?

[280Z Turbo]

Damn, looks like they're stuck with a V8 then.
BTW, where'd they get the I5 from?

The 4.2L inline 6.

[Raghavan]

Damn, looks like they're stuck with a V8 then.
BTW, where'd they get the I5 from?

The 4.2L inline 6.

So they just lopped off a cylinder?

[TBR]

Yep, the 2.8l I4 (the base engine for the Colorado), the 3.5l I5, and 4.2l I6 are all from the same engine family.

[Raghavan]

Yep, the 2.8l I4 (the base engine for the Colorado), the 3.5l I5, and 4.2l I6 are all from the same engine family.

oh, i see. Thanks.

[280Z Turbo]

Damn, looks like they're stuck with a V8 then.
BTW, where'd they get the I5 from?

The 4.2L inline 6.

So they just lopped off a cylinder?

No. They had to add balance shafts as the inline 5 isn't naturally balanced like a straight 6.

[Raghavan]

Damn, looks like they're stuck with a V8 then.
BTW, where'd they get the I5 from?

The 4.2L inline 6.

So they just lopped off a cylinder?

No. They had to add balance shafts as the inline 5 isn't naturally balanced like a straight 6.

i'm just saying simply without getting into the complicated crap of adding extra parts.  

[SJ_GTI]

It's not less powerful. Maybe it is on paper, but in real life, the 4.3L has more balls than the DOHC I5. Plus, simply because it has fewer cylinders and less displacement it is perceived as being "wimpy".

When it comes to trucks:
OHV>OHC

Besides, what's the big deal with smoothness? Do you think American truck buyers care about superficial crap like that? They want low-end torque and reliability.

I guess people today like boring engines that don't make any noise, but I sure don't.

The 4.3L V6 was a very bad engine, very outdated for many reasons.

If GM had to use a V6 it has better choices.

And what does "on paper" mean anyway. The I5 is a more powerful engine, end of story.

As for OHV>OHC on trucks...I agree only because they have had more development. The Nissan Titan's engine has gobs and gobs of low-end torque. Only GM's 6.0L has more.

If NIssan wanted to I have no doubt they could tune their 5.6L DOHC V8 to put out well over 400 HP just like GM's 6.0L. The only thing inherently better for OHV engines is that they are better packaged. On trucks this is less of an issue than with cars, and you see which direction cars have gone in.

[TBR]

Yep, and OHC engines own the midsize truck segment, Ford is the only one that still offers OHV engines IIRC.

[Tom]

Let me supply some figures for you guys to throw around.? (All in smallet trim level)

Length
Dakota 218.8
Frontier 205.5
Colorado 192.4
Tacoma 190.4

Height
Dakota 68.6
Frontier 68.7
Tacoma 65.7
Colorado 64.9


The only car that offers a V8 is the biggest in size by far.? The other three, larger yet closer in size offers a V6.? I have no problem with the Colorado having a V6(or I6), but it is simply to small for a V8.? Sure, it would be fast and people like us who criticize and praise cars we have no intention of buying would like it, but the bottom line is it would be a bad move for Chevy.? Rag, how are you going to fit the a frikin Silverado engine in it?? Good luck driving that in the rain with hundreds of additional pounds up front.? The Colorado biggest market is fleets who need small, cheap, American trucks to carry light stuff around.? They don't need a V8, netiher to consumors who are looking for a small hauler.? Look at the Frontier and Tacoma.? Each has a V6 that's plenty powerful.? There's no need for a V8.

That's fine, most of the others also offer base engines for that purpose. But then they offer a higher-end engine option for people who want more than a basic pickup. That's not where the profit is anyway.

The $30,000 crew cab models should have a V8 option. The regular and extended cabs can suffice with the I4 and I5s.

With that reasoning, every other truck you mentioned as a competitor- Tacoma, Frontier, Ridgeline- should come with a V8 too.  If anyone needs 300+ HP out of a truck, they are not buying a compact.

Who said anything about 300+ hp? Not even some fullsizers have that.

It just needs to be able to run somewhere close to a Tacoma or Frontier in acceleration, and a Dakota in towing capacity. A V8 would no doubt be the best way to do that, and the Colorado sorely needs bragging rights.

Do you think the Frontier, Tacoma, and Ridge should have V8 option too?  If not, then why should an even smaller truck have a V8?  A good 6 cyl would be fine and more than enough.

[ifcar]

But GM doesn't HAVE a good 6-cylinder that it can use. Why not save on the development costs and bring in the bragging rights by using an existing V8?

[Tom]

Tom, what engines does GM have that make more power than the I5 and are already tuned for truck duty? I can only think of one 6-cylinder, the rest are V8s and we all know that the I6 is too long. Sounds like the logical choice is the 4.8l V8.

With a larger engine, you have frontal weight and rear traction problems.  And it may not even fit.  Neither the truck as a whole or its engine compartment was designed for a V8.  Why can't they build a new engine?  Nissan did and built a winner.  It could be a long term financial success if done right.  Why limit yourself with less qualified, old motors?

[ifcar]

I remember reading that the 4.8-liter V8 would fit in the Colorado. Not even sure if it's actually heavier than the current engine either.

And wasn't Nissan's engine built using some existing components? Not only would GM have nothing to base its engine on if its current lineup is as poor as you suggest, but the Nissan engine can also be used in a variety of vehicles, while this would have to be redesigned to fit anything but the Colorado/Canyon and H3.  

[Tom]

But GM doesn't HAVE a good 6-cylinder that it can use. Why not save on the development costs and bring in the bragging rights by using an existing V8?

My post below covers that nicely.  

And bragging rights?  Who are you trying to fool?  If that is your main reason for a V8, you should take another look at what you're saying.

[Tom]

I remember reading that the 4.8-liter V8 would fit in the Colorado. Not even sure if it's actually heavier than the current engine either.

Even if that's possible, you now have a 4,5, and 8 to choose from.  Your missing a big chunk of the market with that gap.

[ifcar]

"And bragging rights? Who are you trying to fool? If that is your main reason for a V8, you should take another look at what you're saying."

The Dakota wouldn't be the success it is now without a V8, though Toyota and Nissan V6s and more powerful. A V8 means something, there's more than just the on-paper benefits.

[Tom]

And wasn't Nissan's engine built using some existing components? Not only would GM have nothing to base its engine on if its current lineup is as poor as you suggest, but the Nissan engine can also be used in a variety of vehicles, while this would have to be redesigned to fit anything but the Colorado/Canyon and H3.

I'm not saying they have to start from scratch.  If they could use existing component to put together a good engine while saving money, even better.  Why would this engine have to be redesigned to fit other GM trucks?

[ifcar]

I remember reading that the 4.8-liter V8 would fit in the Colorado. Not even sure if it's actually heavier than the current engine either.

Even if that's possible, you now have a 4,5, and 8 to choose from.  Your missing a big chunk of the market with that gap.

The 5 and the 8 together can cover the 6's market. A 6 cannot cover an 8's market.  

[Tom]

I remember reading that the 4.8-liter V8 would fit in the Colorado. Not even sure if it's actually heavier than the current engine either.

Even if that's possible, you now have a 4,5, and 8 to choose from.  Your missing a big chunk of the market with that gap.

The 5 and the 8 together can cover the 6's market. A 6 cannot cover an 8's market.

:blink:  

[ifcar]

And wasn't Nissan's engine built using some existing components? Not only would GM have nothing to base its engine on if its current lineup is as poor as you suggest, but the Nissan engine can also be used in a variety of vehicles, while this would have to be redesigned to fit anything but the Colorado/Canyon and H3.

I'm not saying they have to start from scratch.  If they could use existing component to put together a good engine while saving money, even better.  Why would this engine have to be redesigned to fit other GM trucks?

Isn't the size/shape of the Colorado's engine compartment what forced the 4.2-liter I6 to become the 3.5-liter I5 in the first place? Unless they wanted to design all future trucks with the same shape (which wouldn't work for models with multiple engine options), the engine would have to be redesigned to fit a conventional vehicle.  

[ifcar]

I remember reading that the 4.8-liter V8 would fit in the Colorado. Not even sure if it's actually heavier than the current engine either.

Even if that's possible, you now have a 4,5, and 8 to choose from.  Your missing a big chunk of the market with that gap.

The 5 and the 8 together can cover the 6's market. A 6 cannot cover an 8's market.

:blink:

What's confusing there? People who want more power can step up to the 8, those who want more fuel economy can stick with the 5 (which has already been planted against competing 6-cylinder models).

In your product strategy, people who want more power are stuck unless GM builds an engine that outdoes the Toyota and Nissan 4.0-liters. And if they could do that, or believed that the benefit would be worth the cost, they would have done so already.

[Tom]

And wasn't Nissan's engine built using some existing components? Not only would GM have nothing to base its engine on if its current lineup is as poor as you suggest, but the Nissan engine can also be used in a variety of vehicles, while this would have to be redesigned to fit anything but the Colorado/Canyon and H3.

I'm not saying they have to start from scratch.  If they could use existing component to put together a good engine while saving money, even better.  Why would this engine have to be redesigned to fit other GM trucks?

Isn't the size/shape of the Colorado's engine compartment what forced the 4.2-liter I6 to become the 3.5-liter I5 in the first place? Unless they wanted to design all future trucks with the same shape (which wouldn't work for models with multiple engine options), the engine would have to be redesigned to fit a conventional vehicle.

If that's the case, they could reconfigure the engine compartment's measurements for the next model year, right?  Maybe it would be costly, but a good investment to have a universal engine.

[ifcar]

If that were such an easy task, don't you think they would have done it earlier? I'm sure they were very well aware of the fact that an I5 wouldn't look so good on the spec sheet, especially considering its relative lack of towing capacity.

If they could have simply reshape the engine compartment with the snap of a finger, why do you think they had to create the I5 from their existing I6 in the first place?