this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023

17 points (94.7% liked)

Cars - For Car Enthusiasts

4740 readers

16 users here now

About Community

c/Cars is the largest automotive enthusiast community on Lemmy and the fediverse. We're your central hub for vehicle-related discussion, industry news, reviews, projects, DIY guides, advice, stories, and more.

Rules

Stay respectful to the community, hold civil discussions, even when others hold opinions that may differ from yours.

This is not an NSFW community, and any such content will not be tolerated.

Policy, not politics! Policy discussions revolve around the concept; political discussions revolve around the individual, party, association, etc. We only allow POLICY discussions and political discussions should go to c/politics.

Must be related to cars, anything that does not have connection to cars will be considered spam/irrelevant and is subject to removal.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

BallShapedMan@lemmy.world

RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world

The 4 Cylinder Future | Chevy Colorado ZR2 | savagegeese (www.youtube.com)

submitted 2 years ago by rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de to c/cars@lemmy.world

19 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Opinion: Neat technical details, neat truck, but I don't know if I could get over virtual headlight controls.

top 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I can't imagine paying $58,000 for a 4-cylinder truck. I can't imagine paying $58,000 for a truck at all unless it was a work truck for business.

[–] shitescalates@midwest.social 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

You say "four cylinder" like its some kind of gutless junk. This turbo 4 puts past V8s to shame, and gets better fuel economy doing it. Sure new car prices have risen a lot, but I'd rather have this than an outdated V8.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I daily drive a turbo 4 and it's great, but for a truck I prefer simpler and higher displacement.

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

So a big block chevy from 1973 that gets 9MPG and makes 200HP?

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why compare a 1973 engine to a modern one? Chevy isn't installing 1973 engines since about 1973.

[–] CmdrShepard@lemmy.one 1 points 2 years ago

Because you said you prefer a 'simple V8' engine. There's nothing simple about their modern V8s like the LS style engine, so I can't imagine you're referring to those.

[+] Hazdaz@lemmy.world -6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Tell us you know nothing about engines, without telling us you know nothing about engines.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Explain to the folks at home why a 4 cylinder turbo truck is better than a V8.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Because this isn't 1984 anymore and turbo technology isn't some new fangled thing. This particular turbo 4 is extremely robust and has gobs of torque down low. Lower than most V8s which is exactly what you need for towing. Plus when you aren't carrying a heavy load or deep into the boost, you should see fuel economy that is considerably better than what a larger engine would typically get.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I totally agree that modern turbo 4s can be impressive engines,. But I expect you will need to be in boost a lot more often to move such a large vehicle with big tires. The MPG for this truck is 17 city and 19 highway, which is not great for a midsize. This would indicate to me that the weight and large tires are going to be keeping the engine in boost more often.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Boost is not an on/off switch. The difference between full boost and full power, versus partial boost and far better fuel economy is rather huge. And a vehicle is usually (near) idling along at lower RPMs and only using a fraction of its total torque the vast, vast majority of its time. Takes only roughly 20 HP to main speed on a highway.

[–] dan1101@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

And yet this trucks MPG numbers do not reflect any of that. Aside from that what would the advantage of the turbo 4 be?

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

And th3 base version (i.e. not massive tires) of the Colorado gets 20/25 MPG, which is better that the 2023 Toyota Tacoma which has a larger naturally aspirated 3.5L V6 and only makes 278 HP and 265 lb-ft of torque max. The Colorado maxes out at 310 HP and a whopping 430 lb ft of torque.

[–] MonkeyBusiness@lemmy.one -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've got a car inept GF, and she once went way to long without an oil change. Her Chevy doesn't have a turbo, but I was warned that newer Chevy engines with turbos are way more sensitive about oil changes.

What are the odds that the turbo and or engine blow, if some drives this 2k past and oil change?

Genuinely curious here, not trying to be that guy.

[–] rikonium@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No way 2k will kill it instantly, I think a good metric might be seeing how well the 2.7T is doing in the full-sizers but I'm not familiar how it's doing over there.

[–] shitescalates@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago

It's a weird criteria for judging an engine really. Its true that turbocharged engines are more demanding on oil, but that's factored into the design and oil requirements. 2k miles past an oil change is not going to blow up an engine, and every GM car has an oil life reminder, so I'm not sure that's a problem.

[–] MonkeyBusiness@lemmy.one 0 points 2 years ago

There's a whole lotta people who buy overpriced trucks as luxury daily drivers instead of tools. Seems to me like 60k is the more affordable end of that scale.

[–] Hazdaz@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago

Whole lots of ignorance if the number of cylinders and not the power and torque output is what would stop someone from buying a truck.

[–] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 1 points 2 years ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=fU-bhEjflwo

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.