Diesel Option Coming to GMC/Chevy Vans 2017 Model Year

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

cortttt

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2016
Messages
507
Reaction score
13
Diesel added plus 8 speed transmission -

General Motors To Add Diesel Option For Commercial Vans
March 14th, 2016 by Steve Hanley

http://gas2.org/2016/03/14/general-motors-to-add-diesel-option-for-commercial-vans/
 
The Chevy Express and GMC Savanna commercial vans have been in production with virtually no changes for 20 years and General Motors seems in no hurry to replace them. The vans have proved to be durable in commercial use, a feature that tradespeople value highly. They do have a problem, though. They get lousy gas mileage. The 6.0 liter V-8 most of them come with is rated a measly 11 mpg in the city, 16 on the highway. and 13 mpg overall.



Despite competition from new commercial vans from Ford and  Dodge, the Express/Savanna twins continue to sell well. 100,000 were sold in 2014 and another 85,000 in 2015. “The Express and Savana still have a lot of legs,” GM fleet boss Ed Peper said in an interview last month. He says there are plenty of customers who prefer GM’s “tried and true” vans to the Euro offerings, according to Automotive  News. I know that is true. I have a neighbor who is a carpet installer who just retired his Chevy Express after 11 years of service. His van has 394,567 miles on it.

In order to extend the life of its commercial vans a little further and address the fuel economy issue, GM now says it will offer its 2.8 liter Duramax diesel in the 2500 and 3500 versions of the Express and Savanna starting with the 2017 model year. That one move will nearly double the fuel economy of these workhorses. The Duramax is rated at 22 mpg city, 31 highway and 25 mpg combined when installed in the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon mid-size pickup trucks, according to Pickup Trucks.com.  That’s even more than the small Renault designed Chevy City Express van GM introduced last year.



The baby Duramax uses an iron cylinder block with dual overhead camshafts. It generates 181 horsepower at 3,400 rpm and 369 pounds-feet of torque at 2,000 rpm. Once fitted to the larger commercial vans, the engine will be backed up with GM’s 8 speed automatic transmission. GM’s mid-size pickups and its commercial vans are all assembled at the Wentzville, Mo., plant, near St. Louis.

How long will GM be able to continue building these ancient commercial vans? Ed Peper says, “We’re always looking at opportunities to be disruptive.” Nothing says “disruptive” like building the same product on the same line every day since the Clinton administration, does it?
 
I would be interested in one of those.   That is some amazing mileage out of that engine.
 
Anyone know the history of the 2.8 liter Duramax diesel ?

What I'm getting at is how many dealers have a mechanic that knows how to work on them?
 
nobodyG17 said:
I would be interested in one of those.   That is some amazing mileage out of that engine.

 I would too if I had the money... If it gets 31 in the mid-size Silverado I'll bet it would get 27 or 28 with that 8-speed transmission on the highway in the van.

They're also dropping the 5.3L engine; only the 4.8, 6.0 and 6.6 liter engines are now available.

Adding the Duramax adds 12K (!) to the cost of the vehicle.

Now if they would just add 4WD....and I had a lot more money :)





http://www.thedieselpage.com/duramax/durafaq.htm


In closing:
The new GM trucks and diesel drivetrains have been under intense scrutiny by the light-truck industry, as well as by owners of Ford, Dodge and GM light-trucks. The fact is, the new GM diesel trucks have exceeded (with the exception of fuel economy) every GM claim and ad hype for power, performance and drive-ability. Our own 2001 GMC 2500HD Duramax/Allison, after having owned it for 10-1/2 years and 88,000 miles, has never visited the dealer for any service work resulting from any sort of problem. This truck is superior in build quality, drive-ability and performance to the GM prototypes we tested in October of 1999.​
TDP
 
The current emission requirement on diesels are a real kill joy.  The DEF fluid and particulate filter issues make me not want anything to do with them. 

I had a new Dodge 1500 with the Ecodiesel for about three weeks.  I returned it to the dealer & got every penny back, as the outright false claims of payload capacity were discovered when I weighed the truck.   A lot of the excess weight was in the emission control devices, the bare Ecodiesel engine is actually quite light.
 
I agree with chico. if I want a diesel I want one without the DEF and particulate filter. I also want one without all the electric doo dads. just a plain old simple diesel for me. highdesertranger
 
I would put up with the DEF and all for better MPG....I have an MS in Environmental Sciences and reducing my carbon footprint - particularly given the horrid recent news on the accelerated ice sheet melting  - as much as possible is a priority. 

I wouldn't buy a diesel if they polluted like they used to - so I'm all for the emissions stuff.  I would have to check out the diesel emissions as it is...

Looking forward to a hybrid van (with solar on top)  some day... that would be something (lol)
 
I had the 6.2 1985 GM series and it was a great simple diesel, my new ride has a inline 6, 5.9 cummins even simpler.
 
Here's some more on the new option. It turns out that they had a big diesel available and they're replacing it with a smaller diesel plus the 8 speed transmission. It will probably mean considerably less power than the big diesel but better MPG.

The price for the big diesel is really high as is the 2.8 L diesel for their midsize pickups - over 10 grand...


General Motors Fits 2.8L Duramax to Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana



General Motors announced today that it would fit the 2017 Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana fullsize vans with a version of the 2.8L Duramax I-4 currently found in the Colorado and Canyon midsize pickups. Starting in the first quarter of 2017, customers will have the opportunity to fit their vans with the diesel, which will be mated to an eight-speed automatic transmission.


http://image.trucktrend.com/f/132467276+w660+h495+cr1/2016-gmc-canyon-duramax-turbodiesel-engine.jpg
Photo 2/16   |   2016 GMC Canyon Duramax TurboDiesel Engine
The small-displacement diesel will be offered on both passenger and cargo variants of the van, with either the short or long wheelbase. A General Motors representative told us the 6.6L Duramax V-8 turbodiesel currently available in the Savana and Express would be eighty-sixed, leaving the 2.8 as the vans’ only oil-burner. It’s also the only small-displacement diesel available in a fullsize body-on-frame van.

That move confuses us a little bit, as we’re skeptical the 2.8 will have the necessary chops to move around the fullsize vans, particularly once they’re loaded down with cargo. After all, in the Colorado, the engine produces 181 hp and 369 lb-ft, down significantly from the 6.6’s 260 hp and 525 lb-ft.



http://image.trucktrend.com/f/122503439+w660+h495+cr1/2016-gmc-savana-side-profile.jpg
Photo 6/16   |   2016 GMC Savana Side Profile
However, in its favor, the 2.8-ified cargo van will benefit from an additional two gears in its automatic transmission, as the 6.6L diesel had to make do with a six-speed. That, combined with the 2.8’s lighter weight, could bode well for economy-conscious fleet buyers, giving them an efficient option without sacrificing too much performance.



http://image.trucktrend.com/f/53676...-chevrolet-express-cargo-van-drivers-side.jpg
Photo 10/16   |   2014 Chevrolet Express Cargo Van Drivers Side


For our part, we’re big fans of the 2.8L Duramax I-4. Our only complaints surrounds the engine’s high cost of entry in the Canyon and Colorado, and we hope the Express and Savana’s aging bones mean there won’t be as much of a price premium for the little diesel. Otherwise, we came away impressed with the little engine’s torque-rich off-the-line response and significantly improved towing performance over other Colorado/Canyon engines.

Curiously, GM is going the opposite direction as Ford, which just replaced the ancient 5.4L Triton V-8 in its E-Series cutaway and chassis cabs with a larger 6.2L V-8. But as long as product planners can keep its cost in check, we expect the small diesel to be an efficient, torquey hit in the Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana.
Source: General Motors Fleet
 
I wouldn't get too excited about this just yet. When we bought our AWD Express in 2014, the dealer said that since the 1500 model was being dropped, all future express vans will be sold only to fleet customers. Read: you must purchase 5 vans minimum per year.
 
highdesertranger said:
no disrespect but I believe that dealer was blowing smoke.  highdesertranger

I wouldn't go back to that guy. I checked out a new Chevy van at a dealer earlier this year and I was still getting calls months later.
 
Canuck land has them available and not as a fleet purchase, although they did say five, exactly the same, would drop drop the price by four to five grand. Group Buy anyone :D :p 

Talked to Quigley 4X4 and they should have a system engineered by the end of the first quarter of 2018. Bob this year's model comes with rear locker as an option. Not that with a Quigley system you'd need it but...

View attachment summary-1.pdf
 

Attachments

  • summary-1.pdf
    71.1 KB · Views: 4
29chico said:
The current emission requirement on diesels are a real kill joy.  The DEF fluid and particulate filter issues make me not want anything to do with them. 

I had a new Dodge 1500 with the Ecodiesel for about three weeks.  I returned it to the dealer & got every penny back, as the outright false claims of payload capacity were discovered when I weighed the truck.   A lot of the excess weight was in the emission control devices, the bare Ecodiesel engine is actually quite light.
I'm with you on this one. A guy I worked for has a new Dodge with the Cummings Turbo. Nice truck, but he's already had problems with the emission equipment. Did I just say emission equipment on a Diesel? YUK! Give me a 12 valve Cummings Turbo any day.
 
For me, other than power and reliability, it all comes down to range, and the cost to get that range.

If that van can REALLY get 31 mpg on the highway, that's about 900+ miles of cruising range, (assuming a 35 gallon tank) and that's impressive!

Of course it would have a very long ROI period...plus the cost of a high-top, so I doubt I'll be in line at the GM fleet desk anytime soon.

Plus I didn't see mention of towing capacity.  Ooops!

:cool:
 
If that van can REALLY get 31 mpg on the highway...

It won't. Vehicle manufacturers don't deal with the real world (grades, wind resistance, stops and starts, crawling in slow traffic, etc). They're done in a barn, completely level, on a machine called a dynamometer, at one speed, and run them until they run out of fuel.
 
TrainChaser said:
'If that van can REALLY get 31 mpg on the highway...'

It won't.  Vehicle manufacturers don't deal with the real world (grades, wind resistance, stops and starts, crawling in slow traffic, etc).  They're done in a barn, completely level, on a machine called a dynamometer, at one speed, and run them until they run out of fuel.

Actually, vehicle manufacturers use BOTH lab testing and on-road testing. This provides them a ballpark figure that they can use until the actual testing by the feds.

You may be thinking about the government, and the EPA, which primarily uses lab testing on a dynamometer for MPG ratings. And the loads applied to the vehicle drivetrain simulate a variety of conditions...and not just at one speed.

It is possible to get extended mpg with newer diesel technologies. So we will have to wait and see.

I can get 21 mpg with my gasoline powered full-size van, if conditions are right...so I think 31 mpg is possible with the right engine.
 
tx2sturgis said:
Actually, vehicle manufacturers use BOTH lab testing and on-road testing. This provides them a ballpark figure that they can use until the actual testing by the feds.

You may be thinking about the government, and the EPA, which primarily uses lab testing on a dynamometer for MPG ratings. And the loads applied to the vehicle drivetrain simulate a variety of conditions...and not just at one speed.

It is possible to get extended mpg with newer diesel technologies. So we will have to wait and see.

I can get 21 mpg with my gasoline powered full-size van, if conditions are right...so I think  31 mpg is possible with the right engine.
Has anyone taken one of these out for a test drive? If you pull up the GMC website they are now available.
 
At first glance the improved fuel mileage sounds good, but with the increased upfront costs and the added maintenance costs for the emissions systems, I can't help questioning whether the fuel savings will ever offset those extra expenses.

Over the last 25 years I've averaged about 12,000 miles a year, so I'll use this as a base number. I'll assume the MPG averages are accurate, 13 for the gas, 25 for the diesel, a difference of 12 MPG. 12,000 miles at 13 miles to the gallon is roughly 923 gallons of gas; at 25 miles to the gallon its 480 gallons of diesel, a difference of 443 gallons per year. Since I don't know what grade is appropriate for an express I'll use today's price for mid grade at a station on my daily commute, $3.29 per gallon while diesel at that same station is $2.83 a gallon. Yearly fuel cost for the gas engine, $3,036.67, while diesel is $1358.40, a difference of $1678.27. Assuming the $12,000 premium for the diesel engine is accurate, it would take a hair over 7 years to recoup that cost, so it just might be worth the additional upfront cost for me if I were in the market for a new van, which I'm not. More mileage per year will shorten the time frame while less will lengthen it.

Now add in the cost to repair/replace the Diesel emissions system. The best figure I've found in an admittedly brief Google search is in the vicinity of $7000 every 100,000 miles give or take. At 12,000 miles per year, I'd hit the 100,000 mark at 8 years, 4 months so less than a year after recovering the upfront costs I'd see a $7000 repair that would take an additional 4 years and change to recoup. This works out to an additional $840.34 per year in added maintenance costs, effectively cutting the fuel savings in half to $837.93.

That's 11 years before I would see any benefit from the fuel savings. It still might be worth it, but I'd have to think very hard about it before making the purchase.
 
Top