2023 Colorado Configurator is live

[Bob902]

I noticed it was only $395 to opt for the High Output version of the engine with 430 tq.

Less than an aftermarket tuner.

This truck looks intriguing, but having been burned by the General before, I'll at least wait a couple years to see what boondoggles they unleash on the Gotta Get It First crowd before I even consider it.

It also appears to be slightly larger than the current Ranger and that is a No-Go for me as my Ranger borders on being too big.

I really like the idea you can the HIgh Output as a stand alone option. Saw one here in Wentzville where they build them. It was the Trail Boss. Good looking truck.

Sponsored

 

[GTGallop]

If I did one "my way" it would be $40K.
That's assuming I would even want to drive a Chevy.

 

[RangerPNW]

If I did one "my way" it would be $40K.
That's assuming I would even want to drive a Chevy.

The idea of having a Chevy (that's not a Corvette mind you) sitting in my garage genuinely makes me nauseous haha.

 

[OHTREMOR]

In case you’re interested. A loaded z71 would push $50k. Trail boss is a better deal.

https://www.chevrolet.com/trucks/colorado/build-and-price/config

Ford is in trouble in my opinion. Don’t think the new Ranger with a 2.3 will compete well against these trucks. Don’t want or need a Raptor Ranger.

Still like my Tremor but these trucks will be on my short list when it’s time. I put 20-25k on per year so will be in the market in the next couple years. I don’t like to keep these new vehicles much more than 75k.

 

[D Fresh]

Ford is in trouble in my opinion. Don’t think the new Ranger with a 2.3 will compete well against these trucks.

Why do you say that?

The 2.7's numbers are virtually identical to the 2.3's.

 

[Dr. Zaius]

Why do you say that?

The 2.7's numbers are virtually identical to the 2.3's.

While the 2.3 compares well with the entry level and even the midrange version, the high output version of the 2.7 has quite a bit more torque than the Ranger at 430ft lb.

I would think that a Ranger with a tune would probably match it though.

 

[D Fresh]

While the 2.3 compares well with the entry level and even the midrange version, the high output version of the 2.7 has quite a bit more torque than the Ranger at 430ft lb.

I would think that a Ranger with a tune would probably match it though.

Exactly my point.

The HO is basically their "tuned" version. Although executed better by GM in my opinion.

But even the fairly weak FP tune beats those numbers.

I'd expect Ford to tweak a few things going forward. He'll they're already adding an injector to the 2.3. Wouldn't be surprised if they update the tune to match/beat those numbers.

 

[Dr. Zaius]

Exactly my point.

The HO is basically their "tuned" version. Although executed better by GM in my opinion.

But even the fairly weak FP tune beats those numbers.

I'd expect Ford to tweak a few things going forward. He'll they're already adding an injector to the 2.3. Wouldn't be surprised if they update the tune to match/beat those numbers.

The FP tune is over 430 tq?

I didn't realize it was that strong.

 

[AzScorpion]

The FP tune is over 430 tq?

I didn't realize it was that strong.

It's not. The Livernois 91-93 performance tune adds 80hp/100 tq and the FPT is a lot less than that.

 

[D Fresh]

The FP tune is over 430 tq?

I didn't realize it was that strong.

Not sure on the crank numbers. But extrapolating out the wheel numbers it should be close.

Livernois and Unleashed hit right at 400 at the wheels.

 

[D Fresh]

It's not. The Livernois 91-93 performance tune adds 80hp/100 tq and the FPT is a lot less than that.

Adds 100 at the wheels. Livernois 400 torques plus driveline losses even at a conservative 10% make that 440 at the crank.

Chevy and Ford report crank numbers.

The HO 2.7 seems to be basically equivalent to a FP tuned 2.3.

 

[AzScorpion]

Adds 100 at the wheels. Livernois 400 torques plus driveline losses even at a conservative 10% make that 440 at the crank.

Chevy and Ford report crank numbers.

The HO 2.7 seems to be basically equivalent to a FP tuned 2.3.

Not sure I'm following. The Ranger has 310/tq stock and the FPT only adds 60/tq. So the HO is 430 stock and adding the FPT would be 370.

No matter which way you look at it the HO does have more tq than our Rangers do.

 

[MagneticRanger]

EPA #'s have not been released for any of the gm engine offerings of the canyon/colorado 2.7 .... standard / turbo plus / HO

The power levels/tunes asides from the standard I would have to believe will require premium octane to achieve....just like how the Ecoboost's engine adjusts/increases power levels using premium octane, but they will all probably run off of 87 octane but not achieve those rated power levels.
(*See How Owners Manual will word the use of 91 and above)

This engine is still of course of larger displacement than the Rangers EB

On GM authority's website they are running an article on how the EPA has GM ranked 2nd worst For Fuel Economy (2021).

Although probably not vastly worse...I'm probably still willing to bet the canyon/colorado will have poorer mpg results then the Ranger.

Towing capacity goes to the canyon/colorado @ 7700 lbs vs Rangers 7500lbs

6th gen Ranger may have a slightly upgraded 2.3 which may build upon it's power #'s without sacrificing much in the mpg ....I'd expect when a PHEV version debuts it's power numbers will overwhelm GM's 2.7 power ratings...and so the dance continues.

 

[JasonTremor]

Having gone from a 2019 Colorado ZR2 to the 2021 Ranger Tremor, I'm keeping an eye on the GM offerings. The ZR2 I had stickered at 44k and a new base 2023 ZR2 is 48k and has more features than my old one had. I have a few years before I'll think of trading though as I'm also curious what Ford brings to the game with the Ranger in the states.

 

[JasonTremor]

EPA #'s have not been released for any of the gm engine offerings of the canyon/colorado 2.7 .... standard / turbo plus / HO

The power levels/tunes asides from the standard I would have to believe will require premium octane to achieve....just like how the Ecoboost's engine adjusts/increases power levels using premium octane, but they will all probably run off of 87 octane but not achieve those rated power levels.
(*See How Owners Manual will word the use of 91 and above)

This engine is still of course of larger displacement than the Rangers EB

On GM authority's website they are running an article on how the EPA has GM ranked 2nd worst For Fuel Economy (2021).

Although probably not vastly worse...I'm probably still willing to bet the canyon/colorado will have poorer mpg results then the Ranger.

Towing capacity goes to the canyon/colorado @ 7700 lbs vs Rangers 7500lbs

6th gen Ranger may have a slightly upgraded 2.3 which may build upon it's power #'s without sacrificing much in the mpg ....I'd expect when a PHEV version debuts it's power numbers will overwhelm GM's 2.7 power ratings...and so the dance continues.

Yes, to get the advertised power output on the 2.7, premium 91 octane or higher is required. That is the case for the full size Silverado with that same high output 2.7 in it currently.

Sponsored