I'm a little disappointed they didn't reach a little higher with both hp and tq numbers but I bet it will do its just just fine. 

I was hoping more for like 285hp/325tq.

Has anyone figured out why GM's 3.6L V6 is so weak on torque?  You almost want the 3800 or 3900 back just for torque alone.

They should put a 3.5 Ecoboost with 450 hp in there.  They could call it Lightning.

Sounds like a nice setup.  Hmmm...

6 hours ago, riviera74 said:

Has anyone figured out why GM's 3.6L V6 is so weak on torque?  You almost want the 3800 or 3900 back just for torque alone.

Torque of any over head cam motors always suck. Draw back is with out stupid high reving and then turbo charging you have weak torque and movement of the auto.

Marketing is what made these types of motors seem to be the one you wanted when GM built Torque monster small engines with low HP. Moved the auto's smoothly but the lost out due to GM's lack of proper marketing and the rest of the industry trashing it with marketing that said High Horsepower, low torque is the better motors. Just look at the garbage Italian motors and many others out there that especially are non turbo. They all have weak torque figures compared to HP.

15 hours ago, ccap41 said:

I'm a little disappointed they didn't reach a little higher with both hp and tq numbers but I bet it will do its just just fine. 

I was hoping more for like 285hp/325tq.

For those who are unlike me and actually don't have an irrational bias against it it should do just fine.

6 hours ago, dfelt said:

Torque of any over head cam motors always suck. Draw back is with out stupid high reving and then turbo charging you have weak torque and movement of the auto.

Marketing is what made these types of motors seem to be the one you wanted when GM built Torque monster small engines with low HP. Moved the auto's smoothly but the lost out due to GM's lack of proper marketing and the rest of the industry trashing it with marketing that said High Horsepower, low torque is the better motors. Just look at the garbage Italian motors and many others out there that especially are non turbo. They all have weak torque figures compared to HP.

Right...which is why the Mustang GT is so slow compared with the pushrod V8 cars of the muscle car era.

And yes that is sarcasm.

Sounds like it is turning out to be a nice little truck.....

And can tow a pop up......

41 minutes ago, daves87rs said:

Sounds like it is turning out to be a nice little truck.....

 

And can tow a pop up......

Pickup trucks are turning out to be a bright spot in a sea of automotive monotony.

8 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

Pickup trucks are turning out to be a bright spot in a sea of automotive monotony.

True...at this rate, might be all we have left!

17 hours ago, daves87rs said:

True...at this rate, might be all we have left!

There is a reason that I am much less of an enthusiast than before.

12 minutes ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There is a reason that I am much less of an enthusiast than before.

Best old New car is Jag converting the XJ's into silent speeding silver bullets of electricity. That is a sexy car. We need modern takes on cars like that.

i wonfer if GM will end up putting the new 2.7 turbo four into the Colorado.

The new Ranger is a very soft looking truck.  MEH.  At least Ford could have come up with a new design for the US.

5 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There is a reason that I am much less of an enthusiast than before.

Need to make cars fun again....

18 hours ago, regfootball said:

i wonfer if GM will end up putting the new 2.7 turbo four into the Colorado.

The new Ranger is a very soft looking truck.  MEH.  At least Ford could have come up with a new design for the US.

Probably not enough ROI to justify it.   Remember, this is an existing vehicle Ford has federalized for the US market...probably pretty cheap by new vehicle development standards.

 It looks cleaner than the F-series, the blocky overdone robot styling wouldn't work as well on a smaller truck..

19 hours ago, A Horse With No Name said:

There is a reason that I am much less of an enthusiast than before.

I disagree, there a lot of cars currently on the market for the enthusiasts, starting from more affordable Miata, GT86, Mustang Ecoboost etc.,  than pony cars that now have performance of a sports cars.  Plenty of cars for off-road as well, new Jeep, trucks souped up for off road, old timers like 4Runner.

I think there is plenty to choose from.  The prices have gone up, true but there enough to choose from new and used for almost every budget.

12 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Probably not enough ROI to justify it.   Remember, this is an existing vehicle Ford has federalized for the US market...probably pretty cheap by new vehicle development standards.

 It looks cleaner than the F-series, the blocky overdone robot styling wouldn't work as well on a smaller truck..

Agreed..works well for a smaller truck

i guess to me i can't tell if its design is 1990's, early 2000's.  It just looked melted and BLAH

10 minutes ago, regfootball said:

i guess to me i can't tell if its design is 1990's, early 2000's.  It just looked melted and BLAH

Well, it's a 2015 MCE of a 2011 design.   

22 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Well, it's a 2015 MCE of a 2011 design.   

Which is based on a 2001 design they pouched from their 1991 portfolio!  Or when ever in time they decided to rehash the same thing over and over.  

4 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Which is based on a 2001 design they pouched from their 1991 portfolio!  Or when ever in time they decided to rehash the same thing over and over.  

I think the 2011 international Ranger was a clean sheet design.  Now the last US Ranger was a 1993 design that had a couple minor MCEs over it's long run..

13 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I think the 2011 international Ranger was a clean sheet design.  Now the last US Ranger was a 1993 design that had a couple minor MCEs over it's long run..

My Sarcasm failed me.  Yea, I would agree that they did have what might have been a clean sheet redesign, but ya have to admit, the ranger had grown very long, very very long in the tooth with how many years they sold that same body style.

Yeah, but you're going to have to keep your foot in the boost to get that power and that will make it suck gas.  I wasn't particularly impressed with the Turbo-4 in the Mustang.  I want to stress that there wasn't anything wrong with it... it just didn't feel particularly fast (unlike the Camaro V6 I just drove) and it wasn't particularly efficient even when I was driving like a grandmother.  

GM's solution of shutting down 2 cylinders out of the 6 to save on fuel seems more effective for fuel economy in real driving rather than just EPA. 

You know what? GM should develop a V6 derived from the Vortec V8 family GM still has in its trucks, and then spread that torquey V6 everywhere.  Just like they did when they got the original 231 back in 1975.  Besides, those V8s can easily be the basis for a torque strong 4cyl instead of all those German-developed 4cyl engines that are OK but not great.

They did... It was the 4.3 in the last Silverado

On 10/7/2018 at 12:23 PM, regfootball said:

i wonfer if GM will end up putting the new 2.7 turbo four into the Colorado.

The new Ranger is a very soft looking truck.  MEH.  At least Ford could have come up with a new design for the US.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20181010/BLOG06/181019878

"GM's 2.7-liter turbo engine is in the wrong truck"

Quote

So here's the bottom line: The new 2.7-liter engine, loaded with all sorts of technology to boost fuel efficiency and performance, is in the wrong truck. The midsize Chevrolet Colorado is where the 2.7-liter engine will shine, delivering fuel economy and performance along with the ability to haul heavy loads.

I'll give the four-cylinder exactly one year in the Silverado before it fades into the Colorado and becomes a big success. A misfire of this magnitude is rare for GM these days.