Should the Chevy Colorado offer a V8?

[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:

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).  But planted with success?  You know as well as I it gets killed in every comparo against superior 6's.  Suppose you want more power than the 4 or 5, but don't need the power of an 8, and desire better gas mileage.  A 6 fits perfectly.

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.

But planted with success?  You know as well as I that the I5 gets killed in every comparo.  It is not on the same level as superior 6's the competition offeres.  Suppose you want more power than the 4 or 5, but don't want the gas bills of the 8?  A 6 fits perfectly.

[SJ_GTI]

It would be nice if GM could get the 4.2L I6 to fit, as its generally smoother than even their V8's. However it would be alot simpler and cheaper for them to put the V8 in.

The I5 is not a small engine BTW. 3.5L of displacement is a pretty big engine. I would think if they wanted to spend the money they could get that engine up to at least 250 HP/Torque.

[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).  But planted with success?  You know as well as I it gets killed in every comparo against superior 6's.  Suppose you want more power than the 4 or 5, but don't need the power of an 8, and desire better gas mileage.  A 6 fits perfectly.

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.

But planted with success?  You know as well as I that the I5 gets killed in every comparo.  It is not on the same level as superior 6's the competition offeres.  Suppose you want more power than the 4 or 5, but don't want the gas bills of the 8?  A 6 fits perfectly.

That would require extensive development costs, when adding the V8 would not. And IIRC, the 4.8-liter is an especially economical V8.  

[Tom]

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?

Then why did they originally build it that way?  Before they started production they could size it however they wanted.  They sized it to fit the I5 because they wanted to.  They didn't arbitrarily size it, then realize that only the I5 can fit.

[SJ_GTI]

That would require extensive development costs, when adding the V8 would not. And IIRC, the 4.8-liter is an especially economical V8.

Their new V8's can take DoD as well,. I don't think the I6 can do that.

If GM could offer the 4.8L V8 with DoD that would satisfy both needs I think.

[ifcar]

It would be nice if GM could get the 4.2L I6 to fit, as its generally smoother than even their V8's. However it would be alot simpler and cheaper for them to put the V8 in.

The I5 is not a small engine BTW. 3.5L of displacement is a pretty big engine. I would think if they wanted to spend the money they could get that engine up to at least 250 HP/Torque.

A 3.5-liter isn't that big anymore for a midsize pickup. The Ranger/Sport Trac has 4.0, the Tacoma and Frontier are 4.0, the Dakota is 3.7 and 4.7. It's down there with the Ridgeline in its class.  

[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:

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).  But planted with success?  You know as well as I it gets killed in every comparo against superior 6's.  Suppose you want more power than the 4 or 5, but don't need the power of an 8, and desire better gas mileage.  A 6 fits perfectly.

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.

But planted with success?  You know as well as I that the I5 gets killed in every comparo.  It is not on the same level as superior 6's the competition offeres.  Suppose you want more power than the 4 or 5, but don't want the gas bills of the 8?  A 6 fits perfectly.

That would require extensive development costs, when adding the V8 would not. And IIRC, the 4.8-liter is an especially economical V8.

If that could work problem-free I would welcome it.  I still think it would not sell.  I'd be interesting to see what GM thinks about that idea.

[ifcar]

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?

Then why did they originally build it that way?  Before they started production they could size it however they wanted.  They sized it to fit the I5 because they wanted to.  They didn't arbitrarily size it, then realize that only the I5 can fit.

It was originally an Isuzu design that was aimed primarily at foreign markets IIRC. It wasn't designed to fit a larger engine.  

[SJ_GTI]

It would be nice if GM could get the 4.2L I6 to fit, as its generally smoother than even their V8's. However it would be alot simpler and cheaper for them to put the V8 in.

The I5 is not a small engine BTW. 3.5L of displacement is a pretty big engine. I would think if they wanted to spend the money they could get that engine up to at least 250 HP/Torque.

A 3.5-liter isn't that big anymore for a midsize pickup. The Ranger/Sport Trac has 4.0, the Tacoma and Frontier are 4.0, the Dakota is 3.7 and 4.7. It's down there with the Ridgeline in its class.

Still doesn't change the point that the engine, given the same level of tech as the 4.2L I6, could easily achieve upwards of 250 HP/Torque. It wouldn't be class leading but it would be more competitive I think.

If the I5 simply is a 5-cylinder version of the I6, I would think it should be able to make 5/6 of the power. I think the most recent version of the I6 makes 290 or 295 HP...?

[ifcar]

Horsepower is nice, but the I5 will still be unable to out-tow even a Ridgeline.

[SJ_GTI]

Horsepower is nice, but the I5 will still be unable to out-tow even a Ridgeline.

You think engine power is the limiting factor in the Colorado's tow rating?

As mentioned before it has more HP than the S-10...yet has a lower tow rating.  :o  

[ifcar]

Horsepower is nice, but the I5 will still be unable to out-tow even a Ridgeline.

You think engine power is the limiting factor in the Colorado's tow rating?

As mentioned before it has more HP than the S-10...yet has a lower tow rating.  :o

No, not at all. I said "horsepower is nice" (good to have) but won't improve the Colorado's insufficient towing ability.  

[Raza]

Doesn't a lot of tow capacity also come down to rear axle strength?  

[SJ_GTI]

Alright so why did you bring it up if you know it has nothing to do with the tow rating? I am not following your logic.  :blink:  

[SJ_GTI]

Doesn't a lot of tow capacity also come down to rear axle strength?

I am sure that is part of it, but it needs a stronger suspension, chassis, brakes, blah blah blah.

But like Ifcar mentioned that chassis wasn't designed for the NA market. Its essentially an Izusu design but I think they figured it would be a "good enough" upgrade for the S-10 so decided not to make their own new chassis. Ideally they probably should have made a mid-size truck off their mid-size SUV line (Envoy/TB) but that would probably cost too much.

[TBR]

You don't think people would be interested in getting a truck with a V8 that gets the same gas mileage as the competitor's V6 models? Why?!?!?! Do you not realize that the V8 Trailblazer actually gets better gas mileage than the I6, and that is the 5.3l without DOD? As far as weight goes, it isn't that big of a deal really, though I wouldn't be too shocked if the 4.8 actually weighs less than the 3.5 and I would put money down that it weighs less than the I6.

[Tom]

You don't think people would be interested in getting a truck with a V8 that gets the same gas mileage as the competitor's V6 models?

If you mean the 4.8 specifically, I think you're right.  Though the Silverado with the 4.8 gets slightly less economy than the Frontier, Ranger, and Tacoma's 4.0 sixes, it's pulling more weight.  It likely would get better or eqaul mileage in a lighter Colorado.

[TBR]

Keep in mind that the current Silverado doesn't have DOD.

[ifcar]

Alright so why did you bring it up if you know it has nothing to do with the tow rating? I am not following your logic.  :blink:

Adding horsepower wouldn't make it a good towing engine, a better engine is needed. I'm sure some of the problem lies in the basic platform, but some is definitely related to the engine.