Jump to content
  • Sign up for FREE! Become a GM-Trucks.com Member Today!

    In 20 seconds you can become part of the worlds largest and oldest community discussing General Motors, Chevrolet and GMC branded pickups, crossovers, and SUVs. From buying research to owner support, join 1.5 MILLION GM Truck Enthusiasts every month who use GM-Trucks.com as a daily part of their ownership experience. 

Sign in to follow this  
ChevyZ71LTZ

Exhaust note of the 2.8L Mini-max

Recommended Posts

With the diesel motor, will there be any chance of having a good sounding aftermarket exhaust? That is one turn off of a mid size truck is not having the rumble of a V8!

Edited by ChevyZ71LTZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious but why is the sound of the exhaust on a little econ-o box so important?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious but why is the sound of the exhaust on a little econ-o box so important?

Just because its economic, the owner shouldn't wish for it to sound good?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious but why is the sound of the exhaust on a little econ-o box so important?

 

So you consider small diesel an "econ-o box"? Regardless, are you really that interested In who cares about the sound of the exhaust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't consider a diesel an economy vehicle. The power is there with good mileage on top. I'm just curious how good the diesels will sound and feel more than economy anyways. I have a cruze eco for economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a good sounding exhaust that will be available, but it will be fried by the DPF unit that cooks off the captured soot particulates in the exhaust during a regen process. Not really sure it will be worth putting on any aftermarket exhaust stuff. You will here the diesel. That should be good enough.

 

I guess some are not concerned with economy with their diesels, but even my previous 15L Cummins and my 13L Detroit in my commercial stuff, economy is as much an issue as anything. But then, I go thru about 21,000 gallons of diesel a year, so every little bit of savings helps. The 2.8L diesel in the Colorado will be the best of both worlds. Pulling torque of a small block V8 and the efficiency of an economy car. That is the primary reason I would consider it. For the benefits of both. Especially since gas engine economy in pickups hasn't progressed any further since the 1970's. The 351M engine in my 1979 Ford Bronco didn't get less mpg than my 2013 Silverado 5.3L. And my 1998 Chevy 2500 with a 454 got as good of mpg as my 2013 Silverado. Since we can't seem to get out of that rut, it is time for me to consider the 2.8L in the Colorado/Canyon.

 

It was a fantastic motor in my 2006 Jeep Liberty, with the few minor improvements, it ought to be a great engine in the Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet with the DPF deleted they will sound good.

 

Don't know how you managed to get that bad of mileage CP. I have to try to get mileage as bad as my 350 got. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be a good sounding exhaust that will be available, but it will be fried by the DPF unit that cooks off the captured soot particulates in the exhaust during a regen process. Not really sure it will be worth putting on any aftermarket exhaust stuff. You will here the diesel. That should be good enough.

 

I guess some are not concerned with economy with their diesels, but even my previous 15L Cummins and my 13L Detroit in my commercial stuff, economy is as much an issue as anything. But then, I go thru about 21,000 gallons of diesel a year, so every little bit of savings helps. The 2.8L diesel in the Colorado will be the best of both worlds. Pulling torque of a small block V8 and the efficiency of an economy car. That is the primary reason I would consider it. For the benefits of both. Especially since gas engine economy in pickups hasn't progressed any further since the 1970's. The 351M engine in my 1979 Ford Bronco didn't get less mpg than my 2013 Silverado 5.3L. And my 1998 Chevy 2500 with a 454 got as good of mpg as my 2013 Silverado. Since we can't seem to get out of that rut, it is time for me to consider the 2.8L in the Colorado/Canyon.

 

It was a fantastic motor in my 2006 Jeep Liberty, with the few minor improvements, it ought to be a great engine in the Colorado.

 

I guess you haven't heard about the 2014-2015 5.3L? I get between 21 and 22 mpg average all around driving until winter blend gas comes along.

 

Gas here is down to $1.95, and diesel is like $3.59. Where is the economy, when you consider the difference in price?

 

My daughter and I have been looking at Colorados/Canyons. She wants the 3.5 L gas in a Z71 4x4 CC LB. I asked her if she wanted to wait until next year when they come out with the diesel? She looked at me like I had 3 heads, and said what would I want one of those noisy, stinky things for? She is 25, but she is a Scientist, and a whole lot smarter than the old man.

 

So, what would be my argument? Other than the cool factor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have heard of the 2014 and 2015 numbers. Still not all that impressed when you figure that it is only a few mpg better than my 1979 Ford 351M engine in a full sized Ford Bronco, lifted. Now we are talking about over 3 decades difference in time, yet the base line has barely moved. Given technology differences... the 351 only had electronic ignition, carburetor, 4 speed manual, weighed in more than the typical Silverado crew cab, and got 17-18 mpg. So we come forward 3 decades, ECM controlled engines, direct injection, tuned intake and exhaust, smaller displacement (328 CI vs 351 CI) and I really am not moved with what the R&D folks have done.

 

Then you take a look at commercial semi trucks. Typical in 1980 was 5 mpg. Now... high 7 mpg's is very common, with the mystical ceiling of 10 mpg already being pushed (actually being broken in some recent cross country testing). That is a 50% or more improvement in fuel economy. Same loads, same roads, same fuel, but larger trailers now (53' today vs the older 45'). So today's 1500 pickups should be in the high 20's, on a bad day, to even be keeping pace with what is going on elsewhere.

 

Most folks are still in an 80's mindset regarding diesels. They don't stink, they don't smoke, they are cleaner out the tail pipe than most gas engines nowadays. They are environmentally a totally different critter than just a decade ago. The have lower NOx emissions and lower particulate emissions EPA standards than the gassers. And they get, usually, 50% better mpg than a gasser. Tell your daughter, "what's not to love about a modern diesel?" Same power out of half the engine displacement, better fuel economy, longer engine life. I firmly believe from what my digging around has come up with, the new GM 2.8L Duramax is based on the VM Italy 2.8L diesel, and that engine was designed so that less than 50% of them would need a overhaul by 300K miles / 500K KM.

 

And keep an eye out for E85 specific engines. Cummins has a 2.8L inline 4 E85 engine that compares favorably with the 2.8L Duramax diesel. Ricardo (an engine designer that has worked closely with GM over the years) has a 3.2L E85 engine just about ready for production by any OEM that picks up on it, that has the same hp and torque of the 6.6L Duramax diesel. Why GM or any other pickup OEM can't seem to get it together in a serious way regarding mpg with gassers is a mystery to me.

Edited by Cowpie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm one of those people that don't argue about gas mileage in a full size truck... It's a 5,000+ lb truck that's the shape of a brick. You can't imagine the grin on my face going from a 98 Silverado 5.7 that on a good day got 11 mpg in town and 14-15 on the highway to getting 16+ in town and 23 on the highway (that's in V8 mode, in V4 the mileage is awesome, better than some 4 bangers) in the '14. I don't look for gas mileage, but I do try to get the best mileage that I can with what I got.

 

Even if the gas mileages stayed the same the performance is way better. I honestly find it hard to believe that an old truck can get the same mileage as these new trucks.

 

As for the eco-diesel, I do think it's the solution if you want a small truck with the performance of a V8 and still get the mileage. But, again with the mileage, Diesel has been more than gas for a few years and diesel's price seems to not be dropping unlike gas. So when you do the math you don't save money with a diesel. Then you add the added maintenance since diesels cost more to maintain. Personally if I had a smaller truck I would still want a V8, but I've always had full size and don't know any other way so I'll stick with full size.

 

As for the OP, I wonder myself how close a small diesel would sound when compared to a straight 6 or V8 diesel that's 5 liters or more. I like the diesel option in the mid-size lineup, but it makes you think that why not also offer a smaller diesel in the 1/2 tons. I still wouldn't get a diesel, but I wonder how it would sell. Would be like a newer version of the 1500HDs, just offering diesel. instead of a bigger V8 gasser.

Edited by SouthernSilveradoGuy85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have heard of the 2014 and 2015 numbers. Still not all that impressed when you figure that it is only a few mpg better than my 1979 Ford 351M engine in a full sized Ford Bronco, lifted. Now we are talking about over 3 decades difference in time, yet the base line has barely moved. Given technology differences... the 351 only had electronic ignition, carburetor, 4 speed manual, weighed in more than the typical Silverado crew cab, and got 17-18 mpg. So we come forward 3 decades, ECM controlled engines, direct injection, tuned intake and exhaust, smaller displacement (328 CI vs 351 CI) and I really am not moved with what the R&D folks have done.

 

Then you take a look at commercial semi trucks. Typical in 1980 was 5 mpg. Now... high 7 mpg's is very common, with the mystical ceiling of 10 mpg already being pushed (actually being broken in some recent cross country testing). That is a 50% or more improvement in fuel economy. Same loads, same roads, same fuel, but larger trailers now (53' today vs the older 45'). So today's 1500 pickups should be in the high 20's, on a bad day, to even be keeping pace with what is going on elsewhere.

 

Most folks are still in an 80's mindset regarding diesels. They don't stink, they don't smoke, they are cleaner out the tail pipe than most gas engines nowadays. They are environmentally a totally different critter than just a decade ago. The have lower NOx emissions and lower particulate emissions EPA standards than the gassers. And they get, usually, 50% better mpg than a gasser. Tell your daughter, "what's not to love about a modern diesel?" Same power out of half the engine displacement, better fuel economy, longer engine life. I firmly believe from what my digging around has come up with, the new GM 2.8L Duramax is based on the VM Italy 2.8L diesel, and that engine was designed so that less than 50% of them would need a overhaul by 300K miles / 500K KM.

 

And keep an eye out for E85 specific engines. Cummins has a 2.8L inline 4 E85 engine that compares favorably with the 2.8L Duramax diesel. Ricardo (an engine designer that has worked closely with GM over the years) has a 3.2L E85 engine just about ready for production by any OEM that picks up on it, that has the same hp and torque of the 6.6L Duramax diesel. Why GM or any other pickup OEM can't seem to get it together in a serious way regarding mpg with gassers is a mystery to me.

Im almost 60 I had a few 351s Ranchero Gt comes to mind, my dad had 3, gave to his job formans. Had an uncle that loved Broncos 302, 351. I had a Grand Torino Elite had the 400 mod in it. I could go on good gas mileage, you must have only drove down hill and had a Chevy pulled you up. Any body from those days knows you wanted gas mileage Bronco wasn't it, small block chevy and ford in cars would get you in the high teens, That's with 273 gears. Bronco better than todays trucks lifted to boot, I had my good laugh for the day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well guess a lot of factors go into it. I had no problem pulling off 17 with the bronco just as I had no problem pulling 16-17 with my '98 2500 with a 454 big block. I also average 25% better fuel economy with my semi truck compared to the industry average (7.5-7.75 mpg avg vs industry avg of 6 mpg for same class semi trucks). I guess over 5 million documented miles behind me I have learned a little about tweaking out the best from an engine. The 5.3 in my '13 1500 is a sad engine. It is ok, it is viable, but it really doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy about it. And I certainly expected more from it.

Edited by Cowpie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had "little" diesel I think I would like the exhaust note to be as quiet as possible. My bro-in-law had a 2002 f250 and continually put mud tires on it......worst rides of my life...!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cowpie,

 

I think I stepped in something, and a 2013 5.3L is not a 2014 5.3L. That is why I waited for the 2014. Gas is down to $1.87/Gal here. I did get a good laugh out of your Bronco story though. Did it have 44" Monster Mudders on it to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, just some really good BF Goodrich T/A's Quad shocks up front and a strong 4 speed manual. And something I wish was an option on a 1/2 ton 4x4 now.... a solid front axle. Was a fantastic vehicle for the time I lived in the Alaskan interior from '82 to '92. Only bad part of that exposure was a lot of the plastic interior stuff cracked pretty bad. But it was expected given the lowest temp the Bronco saw was -72F in the Yukon Territory. Actual, not windchill.

Edited by Cowpie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.