Colorado and Canyon 4 cyl FE numbers released!

[2QuickZ's]

How does 20 city / 27 MPG hwy sound for a 4 cylinder auto RWD?  The fact that highway is only 1 MPG better than the V6 is a little perplexing.  It should be interesting to see what the diesel numbers turn out to be.  I would imagine it will be over 30 MPG highway.

 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/general-motors/2014/09/21/chevrolet-colorado-gmc-canyon-fuel-economy/16002885/

Edited September 21, 2014 by 2QuickZ's

[ocnblu]

Thanks for posting, 2Quick!

[David]

Interesting, I would say the weight of the auto is part of the low MPG numbers for the 4 bangers and you are right being only 1MPG lower by going to the V6 makes one say why bother with a 4 wen I can get almost the same MPG with the 6. I am also looking forward to the numbers for the diesel.

[Drew Dowdell]

I'm guessing it has to do with gearing

[2QuickZ's]

There would have to be a pretty big price difference between the 4 and the 6 for me to even consider a 4 with so little difference in fuel economy. In the case of a crew cab short box LT, it is a true $1235 option for the V6 with no other options tied to the selection.   I just could not see going with the 4 banger in a vehicle this large with so little pay back.  I guess you could look at it as the 4 cylinder numbers being disappointing but in this case I think it is more a case of the V6 numbers being pretty impressive.

[David]

Reminds me of how Dodge talked up their V6 for the Dakota and yet the V8 actually was more fuel efficient than the V6 even with Manuel trans in 1998.

 

I agree that the V6 is the more impressive engine choice here even at a 1200+ cost. The best way to go.

[smk4565]

If they made these smaller I bet that 4 cylinder would have got 30 mpg.