GM Reveals 2017 Chevrolet Colorado ZR2

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by PYROLYSIS

The 8 speed in my 2016 Silverado is the clunkiest transmission ive ever experienced. Has trouble with the first to second shift every now and then. Not sure the point of it when the gas mileage is rated worse than the 6 speed.

Worse? Not calling you out or anything, but are you sure you are comparing apples to apples. Like...comparing something with a 2.72 rear with a 3.43 or something?

I can't see any scenario where the 8 speed should be rated worse than the 6 speed. No...it doesn't make much of a difference, but it should not be worse. In the Colorado's case, GM says it made "incremental" differences in MPG....the last time I checked Fuelly.com and looked at the Colorado V6 numbers, the 2017 had the same or a hair better average mileage than the 2016.

By the way, it does seem common that the 8 speed does feel a bit clunky until its warmed up a bit. So if you are noticing in morning when leaving your house that it seems a bit harsh, but pretty good after that....that's common. Not saying its right...but it sounds common.

[greg72982]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

So when talking about the trans in the Colorado, you have to separate the 15 and 16 from the 17s. The 15/16 use the LFX engine with the 6 speed auto while the 17s use the LGZ engine with the 8 speed auto.

Lots and Lots of people complain about a shudder issue with the 15 and 16 model. Its not something wrong with the trans, but more about the tuning. The transmission per my understanding, is the same hardware used in the 2010 - 2015 Camaro V6, and many other GM products over the years. In the Camaro, the thing was near bulletproof (the manual had issues early on). In my old 2010 Camaro V6 the transmission was consistently smooth and quick and never gave me a worry. Hardly any complaints on Camaro5 during the many years I was very active there.

So my conclusion is that GM was so focused on getting the very best MPGs out of the Colorado, that the TCM was tuned to hang on to the highest gear as long as possible. I have a 2015 Colorado, and I can tell you it will hang on to a gear while going up a hill (light throttle load) until the RPMS almost dip sub 1,000 rpm. Lots of people experienced a shudder as if the transmission was trying to decide whether or not to drop a gear. GM did have a TCM update available for the trucks, but its a toss up on whether it actually helped or not. So far, in my short time with my used 2015 Colorado, I've been happy with the shifting. It does have the TCM update now.

The 2017 has the 8 speed, and those studder issues should have gone away. I'm not seeing as many complaints about it on the forums as I have seen with the 15 and 16 model, but there are some. Maybe GM did the same thing and it has tuning issues that make it too soft.

I can tell you that if its anything like the 8 speed in my Camaro SS, I would love to have that 8 speed in my Colorado.

I posted earlier in this thread about it but check out the Pedal Commander. Made a huge difference in my '16 Canyon. It wasn't the cheapest but it was money well spent. At the time there was a coupon code I got from the Colorado forums. There's a huge thread about it on there also.

It still periodically seems like it's hesitant to downshift but that's usually when I'm following a grandma or something. It is much improved overall.

[FenwickHockey65]

http://www.off-road.com/trucks-4x4/r...pro-54695.html

ZR2 vs TRD Pro.

[Bhobbs]

I think GM should really consider dropping the 6.2 in the ZR2.

[Zodiac]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I think GM should really consider dropping the 6.2 in the ZR2.

That would be awesome.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

I think GM should really consider dropping the 6.2 in the ZR2.

The LF3/LF4 would be a lot simpler to do for more or less the same result.

[KMPrenger]

They do a 6.2 Colorado (off road or sport) and I might just sell both the Camaro and my current 15 Colorado for it lol. It would be tempting anyways!

But I see zero chance of them stuffing that engine in there.

[strykerg8gt]

For an above average off roader the 6.2 just isn't necessary. The current diesel and the 5.3 L83 would be ideal for this truck. So, they've got one right, just gotta get a small V8 in there.

[Rwarchol]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Worse? Not calling you out or anything, but are you sure you are comparing apples to apples. Like...comparing something with a 2.72 rear with a 3.43 or something?

I can't see any scenario where the 8 speed should be rated worse than the 6 speed. No...it doesn't make much of a difference, but it should not be worse. In the Colorado's case, GM says it made "incremental" differences in MPG....the last time I checked Fuelly.com and looked at the Colorado V6 numbers, the 2017 had the same or a hair better average mileage than the 2016.

By the way, it does seem common that the 8 speed does feel a bit clunky until its warmed up a bit. So if you are noticing in morning when leaving your house that it seems a bit harsh, but pretty good after that....that's common. Not saying its right...but it sounds common.

When I bought my '17 Silverado I was skimming the brochure at the dealership while doing paperwork and even in there the rating for the 8 speed is lower than the 6 for fuel mileage. I remember thinking to myself...why would you PAY for a higher trim level to get the 8 speed just to get lower mileage?

[snizzle]

Bring it Ford. I'm betting this Ranger will force GM to drop a more powerful engine in the Colorado.

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/08/23/...ension-fenders

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Bring it Ford. I'm betting this Ranger will force GM to drop a more powerful engine in the Colorado.

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/08/23/...ension-fenders

Cool! Seeing that Ranger gets me excited....but then again not really surprised to see it either.

Said they heard the sound of a diesel engine in it. I don't think that would force GM to do anything, although if its the 3.2 as they stated it will be more powerful than the diesel in the GM twins.

But if Ford drops the 2.7 V6 turbo in there, the twins don't currently have an engine to compete with that combination of HP/TQ. So that means 5.3 V8, or the LF3/LF4 (likely LF3) to the rescue. But I'm not convinced GM will put a bigger more powerful engine in these twins unless they do a real sport version.

As for daily driving, the 3.6 in my Colorado is more than adequate. It runs good, pulls hard, and maintains low rpms even on many of the slight inclines I encounter on my daily drive. Kick it down and she goes!

Said it before...say it again...a turbo V6 or V8 in these trucks would be amaze-balls.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Bring it Ford. I'm betting this Ranger will force GM to drop a more powerful engine in the Colorado.

https://www.autoblog.com/2017/08/23/...ension-fenders

The 3.2L Autoblog is guesstimating makes all of 4 more hp than the diesel in the Colorado & 19 ft-lbs less torque. Not exactly game changing figures.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The 3.2L Autoblog is guesstimating makes all of 4 more hp than the diesel in the Colorado & 19 ft-lbs less torque. Not exactly game changing figures.

Oh...well I guess I assumed wrong on that one!

[PYROLYSIS]

Originally Posted by Rwarchol

When I bought my '17 Silverado I was skimming the brochure at the dealership while doing paperwork and even in there the rating for the 8 speed is lower than the 6 for fuel mileage. I remember thinking to myself...why would you PAY for a higher trim level to get the 8 speed just to get lower mileage?

Correct, all rear end gears were the same when I compared the mileage. The 8speed was worse by one on the highway.