# Caynon and Colarado Diesel Release



## Gator (Jul 14, 2013)

With the release of these diesels on the 2016 models, I'm wondering how many parts will be the same as the CTD ? I hope they use the same oil and fuel filter.


----------



## MPGeez (Oct 8, 2015)

This is the first I've heard of this. I assume they're doing it for mileage? If so they'll probably use the same engine but with more boost or a larger turbo. At least if they had brains. But GM isn't really known for brains.


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

They use a completely different engine. 2.8T diesel. I would imagine they do not share oil or fuel filters with the Cruze Diesel.


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

Wouldn't surprise me if they shared a fuel filter but oil is highly unlikely.


----------



## kfr291 (Aug 11, 2012)

i am going to say that no parts are shared. You have the 2.0L for the cruze and the colorado/ canyon is a 2.7L. Both are turbocharger engines. but with capacity being different they have different demands for oil and fuel. I imagine that no part will be the same between these two. 

--what parts would you think would be the same or interchangeable?

or did you mean between the two trucks themselves and excluding the cruze.


----------



## kfr291 (Aug 11, 2012)

MPGeez said:


> This is the first I've heard of this. I assume they're doing it for mileage? If so they'll probably use the same engine but with more boost or a larger turbo. At least if they had brains. But GM isn't really known for brains.


There is a significant power gain between the cruze and these trucks... well in the torque at least. the horse power is 151 in the cruze verus 181 in the trucks. 2.0L vs 2.7L.

i am disappointed that there isn't more horsepower in the truck, but the towing capacity is 7,300 with 4x4. these diesels are being released for their towing ability. When you look at the per liter numbers the cruze 2.0 is has more horse per liter then the 2.7 does. but the trucks do have a better weight to power ratio.


----------



## KpaxFAQ (Sep 1, 2013)

I guessed they'd use the same fuel filter cause it's borrowed from the hummer parts bin. I think it would handle a 2.7L just fine.


----------



## Gator (Jul 14, 2013)

kfr291 said:


> i am going to say that no parts are shared. You have the 2.0L for the cruze and the colorado/ canyon is a 2.7L. Both are turbocharger engines. but with capacity being different they have different demands for oil and fuel. I imagine that no part will be the same between these two.
> 
> --what parts would you think would be the same or interchangeable?
> 
> or did you mean between the two trucks themselves and excluding the cruze.


mainly filters. The CTD has been on the market over 2 years and you cant get a simple filter from you auto parts store. If the truck took the same filter the demand would grow. My Harley takes same oil filter no matter what size engine you have.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Thought it was a 2.8td not a 2.7


----------



## Robby (Mar 1, 2013)

It is a 2.8 money_man....you are correct.

This Colorado is in no way related the H3 Hummer.....the previous Colorado was indeed related and built in the same plant in Shrieveport La.

This Colorado is built in Wensville.....same plant that assembles GM full size vans.....

Rob


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

The 2.8L 4 cylinder Duramax has 369lb-ft of torque at 2000RPM, the 5.3L Ecotec3 V8 has 383lb-ft of torque at 4000RPM. Sure the 5.3L has over 300lb-ft from 2000-4000RPM, but still pretty impressive the little 2.8L Durmax has virtually the same torque at half the RPM. 

Suspect with the standard tow package, brake controller and exhaust brake on the 2.8L duramax and similar gearing as a half ton 5.3L with 3.42 axle gears, the Colorado diesel will out preform the 5.3L in light duty towing. 

My family had 3 different 3/4 ton and 1 ton GM 6.5L V8 turbo diesels in the 1990's, they made 190HP and 385lb-ft of torque, so the 2.8L 180HP and 369lb-ft is great for a truck of this size and tow capacity.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

I would imagine the engines will share a lot of exhaust and sensor components. i would think the Cruze was a test bed and they took the knowledge to the truck.


----------



## tunes (Jun 18, 2015)

I think two motors were in the original plan. A standard 2.5 was in the 150+ hp range and the 2.8 181 hp motor was the option. I don't know if they kept the 2.5 cause it clearly didn't have enough hp or torque. The 2.8 has 369 @ 2 grand which still isn't that much. I have friends {dealership managers] who went to las vegas a couple months ago on GM's dime to drive all of the new models and their consensus was that the colorado diesels were slow [under powered].


----------



## moretorque05 (Nov 1, 2015)

The 2.8L diesel Colorado will be a FANTASTIC truck. Very efficient and more than enough capability. I love them. However, quickness will not be it's strong suit. A 5.3L Ecotec V8 Silverado will run circles around it.

Don't expect to see or drive one anytime soon. Most dealers haven't even been able to order them. None have even been produced for dealers. Ultra constrained.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I wouldn't buy a truck if it wasn't reasonably quick. It's part of the bonus of having a truck.


----------



## moretorque05 (Nov 1, 2015)

money_man said:


> I wouldn't buy a truck if it wasn't reasonably quick. It's part of the bonus of having a truck.


I'll give the diesel Colorado a pass, but otherwise, I agree.

The 6.2L in my Silverado is a blast. Completely unnecessary, but so much fun.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

tunes said:


> The 2.8 has 369 @ 2 grand which still isn't that much.


That's 100lb-ft+ more than any engine offered in the competition(mid-size truck), and more respectable numbers for a truck than the 269lb-ft at 4000RPM offered in the colorado 3.6L v6 gas (car)engine. The 3.6L gas needs to be revved to the moon to have any power, the [email protected] means at the diesels [email protected] will match the 3.6L at the same RPM when you look at a dyno chart and have more usable low RPM torque to boot. The 3.6L will still be faster but will be out preformed when towing or driving in hills. 




moretorque05 said:


> However, quickness will not be it's strong suit. A 5.3L Ecotec V8 Silverado will run circles around it.


Acceleration, yes. Towing, towing MPG and solo MPG will be the 2.8L strong suit. Seems most solo test drives have been averaging 27mpg with the 2.8L duramax, most 5.3L test drives are only averaging 16mpg.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Is that 27mpg combined or city?


----------



## moretorque05 (Nov 1, 2015)

No one knows actual economy. From the first drives, testers have seen lower-mid 20s in the city and low 30s on the highway.


----------



## moretorque05 (Nov 1, 2015)

"The 2016 Colorado diesel 2WD offers an EPA estimated 22 mpg city and 25 mpg combined. The 4WD model offers an EPA estimated 20 mpg city and 23 mpg combined."

Chevrolet Colorado Diesel: Americaâ€™s Most Fuel Efficient Pickup

It needs an 8 speed...


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Yes it does


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Looks like it is officially rated at 31 MPG. Oh, and they mention that the Cruze diesel is on schedule for 2017 model year. I will be first in line. 

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...s-to-top-30-mpg-on?cciid=email-autonews-blast


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

diesel said:


> Looks like it is officially rated at 31 MPG. Oh, and they mention that the Cruze diesel is on schedule for 2017 model year. I will be first in line.
> 
> http://www.autonews.com/article/201...s-to-top-30-mpg-on?cciid=email-autonews-blast


Wow! That's pretty darn good for a truck. My old sedan was like 19/27.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

Hmmm. That's awesome, I think I'll let the bugs get worked out of it first then think on trading the Cruze in on one. Much easier to put a mountain bike in a bed than in a trunk.

I prefer the Canyon styling, never cared much for the Colorado.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Will most definitely be buying one of these. I really hope they can figure out whatever it is they need to, and offer the extended cab with a diesel the next year (like how they showed the ZR2 concept - extended cab and diesel).


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Meh. I'll wait to see real world results. These car review pages never seem to tell the whole truth (ecoboost).


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

money_man said:


> Meh. I'll wait to see real world results. These car review pages never seem to tell the whole truth (ecoboost).


Well, other than the reviews which stated how they barely were able to get the city fuel economy (while driving mostly highway) in the 2.7L and the 3.5L didn't even meet the city rating during the same kind of driving. Those showed the truth.

That 31 highway (or 29 with 4WD) will likely be a bit low. The diesel Rams can definitely do better than the 28 (or 29 now, with the '16 HFE) mpg highway rating. We had a 4x2 Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel mule, and my buddy beat the living piss out of it while driving it one day, and _still_ got 26 mpg. Diesel ratings are usually an understatement.

That said - even the 4WD model will likely get far better fuel economy than the Cav, with it's 3-speed auto and leaking fuel line.


----------



## tunes (Jun 18, 2015)

I think I'll need to drive one of these trucks for a real "seat of the pants " feel. Our arm chair logic [which I totally agree with] on how the torque and HP will relate to the gear ratio, weight, and the transmission may not duplicate the real world feel. I wonder if the trans is an Aisin like our cruze or a GM brand with a tow/haul mode like the larger trucks. I would love to have one of these trucks if they can get the advertised mileage. I hope the emission situation is a little better than our cruze. I havn't had any trouble with mine yet but there sure are a lot of systems in the exhaust that scare me.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Same amount of systems. DPF and SCR are here to stay, to meet emissions (which the EPA just certified that it did - with their new requirements). Not a big deal.

From all the reviews, it's like your typical turbodiesel. Not "fast" by any means, but sure as **** is ballsy. Kind of similar to the Cruze diesel. Not overly fast off the line - but when you go to pass someone, it does it extremely rapidly.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I don't find the ctd to be overly ballsy. But I've never driven a gas model to compare. 

I would never buy a 2wd truck. Those are only good if you live in California or texas


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

It has significantly more torque to pass people on a whim. The 1.4T usually needs a little bit of a head start (though it does fine). That's what I mean by ballsy - you're talking twice the torque, pretty much on demand.

The biggest difference was the drive from Michigan to North Carolina, through the mountains. The '14 2LT we took there definitely needed to downshift on some of the climbs. The diesel didn't give two shits and stayed in 6th.

And I will be getting the 4WD variant. Hoping for a ZR2.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

diesel said:


> Looks like it is officially rated at 31 MPG. Oh, and they mention that the Cruze diesel is on schedule for 2017 model year. I will be first in line.
> 
> http://www.autonews.com/article/201...s-to-top-30-mpg-on?cciid=email-autonews-blast


That article doesn't mention the 4WD MPG, it gets 29mpg with 4x4 which is pretty impressive still. 
GMC Canyon, Chevy Colorado diesels get 31 mpg highway


----------



## BowtieGuy (Jan 4, 2013)

To be honest, I don't find 29 MPG highway for the 4WD impressive at all. The Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel weighs 1000 lbs more and is rated 28 MPG highway with 4WD. I think this engine really needs an 8 speed transmission.


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

BowtieGuy said:


> To be honest, I don't find 29 MPG highway for the 4WD impressive at all. The Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel weighs 1000 lbs more and is rated 28 MPG highway with 4WD. I think this engine really needs an 8 speed transmission.


Needs an eight speed. But keep in mind the grand Cherokee will have better aerodynamics due to not having a bed. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

BowtieGuy said:


> To be honest, I don't find 29 MPG highway for the 4WD impressive at all. The Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel weighs 1000 lbs more and is rated 28 MPG highway with 4WD. I think this engine really needs an 8 speed transmission.


I agree more gears will help but..... there is a problem with the 8speed MPG in real world. If you look at the numbers it shows how the manufactures can game the EPA test cycle. Look at any silverado 5.3L and you will see ALL get a 22mpg highway rating(6 speed auto 4x4), however that truck can come equipped with 3.08 gears or 3.42 but the EPA doesn't require GM to test for those difference, only 2wd and 4wd and now 6 speed vs 8 speed. 

Now that the new 8 speed auto is out and its been EPA tested, since it only comes equipped with 3.23 gears the axle gearing differences become apparent. THE 8 SPEED AUTO GETS WORSE MPG THAN THE 6 SPEED!!! No wonder every person I know who doesn't get 3.08 gears in their 1500 silverado and opts for the 3.42 can't achieve the 22mpg high rating(those with 3.08 can). 

The Colorado diesel has 3.42 axle gears, so it could easily get better MPG if they had used 3.08 gears like the silverado 6 speed 5.3L does. I think most people would have been less impressed with the towing and acceleration performance if they did that.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> I agree more gears will help but..... there is a problem with the 8speed MPG in real world. If you look at the numbers it shows how the manufactures can game the EPA test cycle. Look at any silverado 5.3L and you will see ALL get a 22mpg highway rating(6 speed auto 4x4), however that truck can come equipped with 3.08 gears or 3.42 but the EPA doesn't require GM to test for those difference, only 2wd and 4wd and now 6 speed vs 8 speed.
> 
> Now that the new 8 speed auto is out and its been EPA tested, since it only comes equipped with 3.23 gears the axle gearing differences become apparent. THE 8 SPEED AUTO GETS WORSE MPG THAN THE 6 SPEED!!! No wonder every person I know who doesn't get 3.08 gears in their 1500 silverado and opts for the 3.42 can't achieve the 22mpg high rating(those with 3.08 can).
> 
> The Colorado diesel has 3.42 axle gears, so it could easily get better MPG if they had used 3.08 gears like the silverado 6 speed 5.3L does. I think most people would have been less impressed with the towing and acceleration performance if they did that.


I will trade 1-2 MPG for power any day. I can't stand needlessly tall gears that kill acceleration (looking at you, GM 4-speeds).


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

They should offer a specific diesel trim that offers the 3.08 gears for the hypermilling crowds that just want a truck


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

money_man said:


> They should offer a specific diesel trim that offers the 3.08 gears for the hypermilling crowds that just want a truck


agreed it should at least be an option. I figure most who want the truck for MPG though will opt for the 31mpg highway 2wd model. 

I should add my 2004 cavalier 2.2 ecotec auto was EPA rated at 31mpg highway(post 2008 rating), so the 2WD Colorado 31mpg highway is awesome. Sure 4x4 would make winter travel easier, but I suspect that 2WD Colorado will way outperform my old cavalier with little to no ground clearance in winter driving anyway.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Anyone know if these come with a LSD?


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

money_man said:


> Anyone know if these come with a LSD?


2WD trucks have it as an option. Also the Z71 package 4x4.


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

Every modern diesel I have driven has easily exceeded the EPA MPG ratings on the highway. Usually by at least 10% at speeds around 72 MPH.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Must be nice. When I bought mine, the sticker claimed 67 mpg imp. Stupid Canadian testing.


----------



## cyclewild (Aug 14, 2013)

Just as an FYI for you guys, production on the diesels is slated to start first of the year. I work in the Wentzville plant and over Christmas the line is being prepped for the differences on them.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

spacedout said:


> I agree more gears will help but..... there is a problem with the 8speed MPG in real world. If you look at the numbers it shows how the manufactures can game the EPA test cycle. Look at any silverado 5.3L and you will see ALL get a 22mpg highway rating(6 speed auto 4x4), however that truck can come equipped with 3.08 gears or 3.42 but the EPA doesn't require GM to test for those difference, only 2wd and 4wd and now 6 speed vs 8 speed.
> 
> Now that the new 8 speed auto is out and its been EPA tested, since it only comes equipped with 3.23 gears the axle gearing differences become apparent. THE 8 SPEED AUTO GETS WORSE MPG THAN THE 6 SPEED!!! No wonder every person I know who doesn't get 3.08 gears in their 1500 silverado and opts for the 3.42 can't achieve the 22mpg high rating(those with 3.08 can).
> 
> The Colorado diesel has 3.42 axle gears, so it could easily get better MPG if they had used 3.08 gears like the silverado 6 speed 5.3L does. I think most people would have been less impressed with the towing and acceleration performance if they did that.





jblackburn said:


> I will trade 1-2 MPG for power any day. I can't stand needlessly tall gears that kill acceleration (looking at you, GM 4-speeds).


Surprised those gear ratios are so low for the Silverado. My 3.7L Jeep is running a 3.73 gear. The engine definitely jumps to life with a little gas, but it kills the gas mileage. It's rated at 16/20 by the old (2003 MY) EPA formula, but I rarely see much more than 15 out of it. 

Now out at the dirt track where I'm a racing chaplain, the smallest gear ratio I've ever seen is a 4.83 on a half-mile track, and most of then are running 6.00, 6.20, 6.33, or 6.50 gears at the 3/8 mile tracks I spend the most time at. I've even heard talk of running 6.67 and 7.00 gears before. Imagine the mileage if we put those in a street car. They get about 4 laps per gallon--so I guess that's about 1.5mpg with a small block chevy turning 6200 rpm except for a quick burp entering the turns.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

> Surprised those gear ratios are so low for the Silverado. My 3.7L Jeep is running a 3.73 gear. The engine definitely jumps to life with a little gas, but it kills the gas mileage. It's rated at 16/20 by the old (2003 MY) EPA formula, but I rarely see much more than 15 out of it.


In first gear, maybe. I'll hand it to them, they're peppy in town, but that 3.7 is a dud above 45 mph. Mash down on the gas, hear it roar, and watch the speedo sloooowly gain speed. 

It does cruise at a VERY low RPM though. You can eek low 20's out of it on the highway if you're not in hilly terrain.


----------



## revjpeterson (Oct 2, 2013)

jblackburn said:


> In first gear, maybe. I'll hand it to them, they're peppy in town, but that 3.7 is a dud above 45 mph. Mash down on the gas, hear it roar, and watch the speedo sloooowly gain speed.
> 
> It does cruise at a VERY low RPM though. You can eek low 20's out of it on the highway if you're not in hilly terrain.


Have you driven one with a Cold Air Intake? That made all the difference on throttle response with mine. It used to drop down to 3rd gear (or even 2nd) to do anything but cruising above 45mph, but once I added the intake, it was completely different. Now I can kick it in from 40-50mph and be at 75 in no time. 

I do love the cruising RPM, turning like 1650 to go 60mph. I think that's all about the 4th gear, since the jump from the 1.0 ratio 3rd gear to the overdrive 4th gear knocks like 800 rpm off the tach. I have the 2003.5 model with the odd-ball transmission with two second gears, though--one for going up through the gears normally and the other is a lower ratio for downshifting. So, my Jeep could be doing some strange things with rpm because of the gear ratios within that transmission too.

Back when it was newer and before I put on the intake, I managed to knock out a trip at 23mpg, but it was flat two-lane roads at 55-60mph and no stops or lights. When I was using it for my daily driver, I averaged 17-19. Now it's just a towing/hauling/snow driving kind of second vehicle for me, so highway runs are rare. One time I managed to get a tank all the way down to 9mpg with 4 wheel drive on all the time and never leaving town.


----------



## Su8pack1 (Apr 17, 2014)

The more diesels, the better.


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

I'm currently thinking about the ram ecodiesel when I buy a full size in a year and a half. People are getting awesome real world numbers.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

i would opt for a higher diff ratio for acceleration if coupled with a 8 speed because you have the power when needed and the transmission gets you the fuel economy because of the 2 extra gears that the diff would sacrifice. now in a 5 speed and 6 i could see being more conservative with the diff gears and opting lower gears vs the tall gears


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Worth noting: the 2016 Colorado just won MT TOTY.


----------



## cyclewild (Aug 14, 2013)

They're starting to trickle down the line....


----------



## Chevygirl89 (Sep 18, 2013)

I heard they are going to have light bars available. This will be in the list of Chevy's at the house for sure. More Pics!!


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Trailboss.


----------



## Chevygirl89 (Sep 18, 2013)

With the duramax?


----------



## money_man (Feb 25, 2014)

Chevygirl89 said:


> With the duramax?


Yup


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I think the trail boss will be another crappy pack that adds a available to public accessory of the sport bar, to a Colorado and charge more for it. if they added a lift kit and a locker upfront maybe id pay more. as of now i see weather teck type mats, some amazon led cubes, and a already sold sports bar


----------



## diesel (Jun 8, 2013)

cyclewild said:


> They're starting to trickle down the line....
> View attachment 172385
> View attachment 172393


I can't wait to test drive one! I am not a truck person, but who knows? Thanks for posting!!


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

> I can't wait to test drive one! I am not a truck person, but who knows? Thanks for posting!!


they are very comfortable and you will enjoy the ride very much.drives more like a suv then a ol pickup. if you want off road capability good luck


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> I think the trail boss will be another crappy pack that adds a available to public accessory of the sport bar, to a Colorado and charge more for it. if they added a lift kit and a locker upfront maybe id pay more. as of now i see weather teck type mats, some amazon led cubes, and a already sold sports bar


It comes with larger tires as well. ZR2 will probably have all the other ****, if they decide to (intelligently) bring that out. 

As well as, you know, an extended cab diesel in the LT or Z71 trim...only available in the WT trim, through fleet only.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

If you get the z71 pack it comes with the better all terrain goodyears, i think its a cool concept that did not go enough


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> If you get the z71 pack it comes with the better all terrain goodyears, i think its a cool concept that did not go enough


This has slightly bigger, more aggressive tires than the Z71.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

that's odd, a few months ago you had the option for plus sized good year wrangler a/t and the z71 pack. i just went to build a Colorado out and it looks like they got rid of the option. looks like they will only let it go with the trail boss edition.. again you need a special pack to get one thing you want. i hate this trend in the companies. i don't want a sunroof with my 9 speaker system... ohh well you have to have one or no speakers


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

I don't recall there ever being that option - and I practically build one of these online every day, haha. 

Well don't worry - you can't get a sunroof on the Colorado. You can get the Bose system without nav, too - but not the other way around.

And on the '14 Diesel Cruzes, the sunroof and the Pioneer were not linked, at least not that I recall. Ours just happens to have both, but there isn't a "Sun and Sound" package.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Wow, a $3730 option. The only thing I don't like about the Canyon is the price for what I want


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

my 15 you had to pack the sunroof and speaker upgrade. i hate sunroofs but like better sound why must i get both GM?! im excited for the diesel Colorado but if in ltz 4x4 form with the diesel, bose and navigation im at 40,000$ lol. even with my employee pricing paying cost it still will be expensive so much so im in 2013 used grand sport vett territory


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

i dont need a pick up have my 4x4 5.2 jeep zj for HD, the cruze for economy, the sport bike for economy/speed, but i want a sports car


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Wow, a $3730 option. The only thing I don't like about the Canyon is the price for what I want


That does come with an exhaust brake, trailer brake controller, 2-speed transfer case, so for the amount, honestly...not terrible. Diesel engines cost more - just be happy it's not the price increase you get on a 3/4-ton.


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I dont like the 2 speed transfer case. Wen im driving i put it on 2 hi, when im on rough terrain i put it in 4 hi, when its gonna get very very rough 4low. I dont want a car doing it for me unless i command it to


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

pandrad61 said:


> I dont like the 2 speed transfer case. Wen im driving i put it on 2 hi, when im on rough terrain i put it in 4 hi, when its gonna get very very rough 4low. I dont want a car doing it for me unless i command it to


Feel free to turn it off Auto then...


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

I should be more clear, i prefer mechanical linkage vs electronic, my point is that a small pick up like this should not be as fancy as the 2500 or so, i should have started off with that. Ill probably have it off at all times (if i could afford a colorado so its a mute point lol)


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

Anyone else see the techlink about 10 days ago? In image 2, is that really how the oil filter is attached? seems overly complicated for no reason at all. New 2.8L Duramax Diesel Available in 2016 Colorado and Canyon


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

spacedout said:


> Anyone else see the techlink about 10 days ago? In image 2, is that really how the oil filter is attached? seems overly complicated for no reason at all. New 2.8L Duramax Diesel Available in 2016 Colorado and Canyon


That looks like the oil cooler. Probably just a heat exchanger box between coolant/oil.

Oil filter is front left of engine right by the air intake pipe, looks similar to the Cruze.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

I see it thanks.... reading the techlink made it sound like the thing in the image was the oil filter housing!


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

Hurray for more easy oil changes.


----------



## GlennGlenn (Nov 27, 2015)

MP81 said:


> Hurray for more easy oil changes.


MB has been doing this for years with their engines. Just pop out that filter, it drains down and put in new cartridge. Literally takes less than a minute to do. Draining the oil is what takes the most time.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

GlennGlenn said:


> MB has been doing this for years with their engines. Just pop out that filter, it drains down and put in new cartridge. Literally takes less than a minute to do. Draining the oil is what takes the most time.


My Cobalt has a cartridge as well (the Ecotecs have had that since they were introduced in 2000), jacking it up is definitely the most time consuming part. Can do the Cav's without jacking the car up, but the filter is sideways on the back of the engine.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> I should be more clear, i prefer mechanical linkage vs electronic, my point is that a small pick up like this should not be as fancy as the 2500 or so, i should have started off with that. Ill probably have it off at all times (if i could afford a colorado so its a mute point lol)


are any 4wd vehicles mechanical linkage of the last ~5yrs?

i srsly dont know....would expect no.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

boraz said:


> are any 4wd vehicles mechanical linkage of the last ~5yrs?
> 
> i srsly dont know....would expect no.


Can't think of any. It's been quite some time since I've seen a mechanical lever for a transfer case.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MP81 said:


> Can't think of any. It's been quite some time since I've seen a mechanical lever for a transfer case.


Jeep was probably one of the last, and I think they held out to around the 2008-10 period sometime.

My dad's is a PITA to get back out of 4WD.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

MP81 said:


> Can't think of any. It's been quite some time since I've seen a mechanical lever for a transfer case.



If you go look at a silverado work truck, they still have a lever on the floor. However its really just a electronic switch, no linkage to speak of.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> If you go look at a silverado work truck, they still have a lever on the floor. However its really just a electronic switch, no linkage to speak of.


No ****, there it is. Even on the LS trim level.


----------



## spacedout (Dec 7, 2010)

MP81 said:


> Hurray for more easy oil changes.


The all new cruze goes away from this style filter, like most other GM cars the filter is a metal canister that's mounted to the front corner of the passenger side of the oil pan. 

After having an ecotec cavalier and now the cruze with the filter mounted in the same spot, I find the lower you mount the filter the less mess it will make when changing or if it develops a leak. I hate these top mounted ones.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

spacedout said:


> The all new cruze goes away from this style filter, like most other GM cars the filter is a metal canister that's mounted to the front corner of the passenger side of the oil pan.
> 
> After having an ecotec cavalier and now the cruze with the filter mounted in the same spot, I find the lower you mount the filter the less mess it will make when changing or if it develops a leak. I hate these top mounted ones.


The only reason the cartridge in my Cobalt makes any mess at all, is because I have to maneuver it around the supercharger, which sits directly above where the cartridge sits. There's space, but since the auto is rolled forward about 5 degrees, there's a little less space to pull the cartridge between the supercharger and the "core support" flange, but it barely makes a mess at that.

The Cav, on the other hand, is a completely blind operation. Nothing I like more than spilling nice fresh oil out of the canister, and into the drain pan, trying to find the **** thread. Well, the oil that doesn't land on top of the downpipe, that is. 

If the new one has it sideways, but somewhere you can actually see, I'm totally fine with that.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

spacedout said:


> If you go look at a silverado work truck, they still have a lever on the floor. However its really just a electronic switch, no linkage to speak of.


yeah my f-i-l's 92 chevy 4x4 is floor shift, but electronic....got to the point you had to remove a fuse/put the fuse back in to get it to work


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

ill stick with my 95 grand Cherokees mechanical linkage that i swapped for a novak cable shifter. mechanical is less prone to damage vs electronic.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

do all these electronic transfer cases at least have software to stop someone from engaging it when it shouldnt?


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

yes they do, the system knows when it can and cannot engage. just like our shift denied it also does it lol. its advanced enough now that it turns itself on if the roads get bad enough and turns off on its own.


----------



## boraz (Aug 29, 2013)

pandrad61 said:


> yes they do, the system knows when it can and cannot engage. just like our shift denied it also does it lol. its advanced enough now that it turns itself on if the roads get bad enough and turns off on its own.


nice...at least its protective


----------



## pandrad61 (Jul 8, 2015)

yes they did a good job idiot proofing lol.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

MP81 said:


> If the new one has it sideways, but somewhere you can actually see, I'm totally fine with that.


The 1.4T Cruze is on top of the motor and pretty easy to get out without making a mess if the car hasn't been run in the last 5 mins. I generally drain the pan first, then take out the filter, at which point, most of it has drained down anyway.

Our Camry has it on the bottom of the engine - while it's very easy to get to and get out, you usually make a mess of your hand.


----------

