Diesel Option Coming to GMC/Chevy Vans 2017 Model Year

[highdesertranger]

IMO all the sensors, electronic crap, and emission stuff. ruined the diesel engine. they took a tough as nails, highly reliable engine that got great fuel economy and made it a unreliable, and super expensive to maintain. my 2 cents. highdesertranger

 

[Ballenxj]

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.
<-------->
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.

First, thanks for doing the homework on this.  
It's starting to look like it would be best to let somebody else take the hit for depreciation and wait for these to hit the used car market.
Another benefit of waiting would be to see what other problems, if any arise.

 

[Every Road Leads Home]

IMO all the sensors,  electronic crap,  and emission stuff.  ruined the diesel engine.  they took a tough as nails, highly reliable engine that got great fuel economy and made it a unreliable,  and super expensive to maintain.  my 2 cents.  highdesertranger

My cousin works for a large company that does union iron work in Boston.  They bought 35 new Silverado 2500's with diesels this year, replaced their entire fleet.  They are replacing their entire fleet again the beginning of 2018 with Silverado's with the 6.0 gas engine.  They are constantly  having issues and everyday they're in the shop, the company is losing lots of money.  He said the owner is not a happy camper right now.

 

[CautionToTheWind]

I think they are trying to eventually market against the ISF2.8 Cummins.

It's wise to wait two years for the weeds to clear. The trucking industry had the same issues for two years. Guys even today are arguing with reality on sensors/DEF. No amount of discontentment will change it; unless you go with a glider (in semi's).

The Cummins 2.8 has quite an aftermarket following.

 

[akrvbob]

Here's the dirty little secret everyone wants to ignore.

Those good old super-reliable diesel engines kill people. It's a scientific fact not up to dispute that particulate emissions gets in human lungs and accumulate. Accumulate enough, and you die. People with breathing issues need less to die.

Pick your poison, gas engines warm the planet, diesel kills people. In the 90s, the USA decided NOT to kill people but to try to stop gas engines from warming the planet.

In Europe, they decided to kill people. Well, not really, the manufacturers promised they could stop killing as many people, but now we know they lied, they went merrily along their way killing people. The science and statistics prove it to be true. Volkswagen has admitted it and will pay billions in restitution. In fact they will eventually stop selling gas or diesel cars.

Today, every European government regrets their decision and is quickly moving away from killing people. Several major cities have announced that soon diesels will be illegal in city limits. Several countries have set deadlines when there will be no gas or diesel engined cars sold.

We all have to make our choices.

 

[Scott7022]

People want to ignore it so much that a 7.3 Expedition Eddie B from 2005 bulletproofed motor with 45000 miles is going for around 27 grand! Everyone knows the milage will be awesome and so your range is awesome, even with stock tanks and you can go bigger. It will do it for a million miles and yes kill lots of people. But as Bob says pick your poison. The effects of lead in early benzene motors is having a marked affect on our population and new safer fuels are just marketing. I did see donkeys pulling Lada's 4x4 in Georgia. This isn't my picture but it is similar. What are the options? I like the idea of Bio Fuel and these new vans engine can be made to run on it. Just enough people have to get more angry about the facts and not get distracted by all the other stuff that isn't really killing us. But I guess there is a little bit of Stalin in everyone.

 

[tx2sturgis]

Those good old super-reliable diesel engines kill people. It's a scientific fact not up to dispute that particulate emissions gets in human lungs and accumulate. Accumulate enough, and you die. People with breathing issues need less to die.

Things have changed in the last 10-15 years, that's why you see the terms ULSD, DEF, and SCR in discussions about modern diesels.

Modern clean diesel requires a very low level of sulfur in the fuel,  and that's why all on-road diesel in the USA has to be ULSD, (Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel)...this is pretty much the only diesel you can buy in most areas, and it is why many older diesel engines are having fuel lubricity problems. (Not unlike the 70's when we gained a new fuel, unleaded gasoline, and now its the only gasoline sold)

With the cleaner diesel fuel, SCR (selective catalytic reduction) technology and DPF (diesel particulate filter) filters that are on modern diesels, they are very clean burning. True, the older diesels spit out a lot of crap, but newer ones do not. Black smoke roiling out the exhaust pipe simply cannot and DOES NOT happen on a modern (after 2007) diesel engine vehicle, assuming everything is working properly and the owners have not modified the emissions systems.

(Just a sidenote: Diesel locomotives, off-road diesels, and huge diesel-powered ocean-going cargo ships were given extensions and waivers)

In a place like smoggy Los Angeles, a modern 'Certified Clean Diesel' equipped Class 8 truck actually puts out exhaust that is CLEANER than the ambient air that is going in. They are capable of filtering 90 to 100% of the soot and particulates from the engine and from the dirty air coming in. And 'regen' (filter cleaning) cycles are very clean also.

Of course, all of this is expensive to do. An OEM DPF filter can cost $10,000 for some OTR truck models...$5000 to $8000 is common as the price fluctuates due to market conditions. This is a filter! And at some point, like all filters, it has to be removed, cleaned, and or, replaced.

I have a lot of years and miles driving commercial 'clean diesels'....BUT...I have almost no experience with these small diesels, although I expect they operate in a similar fashion, especially since most of them have a DEF tank, which is a dead giveaway that they are using SCR and DPF components to clean up the exhaust.

 

[highdesertranger]

let's face facts all vehicle exhaust kills people. doesn't matter what you are burning or the vintage of the vehicle. if anybody wants to disprove this lock yourself in a garage with said vehicle running and see how long you last. the problem comes from the shear number of vehicles. again there are just plain to many people. the root of all our environmental evils is to many people. if one person pisses in a pond it's no big deal, if a million people piss in a pond it's a big deal. until we come to grips with this we are not going to fix anything. my 2 cents. highdesertranger

 

[cortttt]

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.

The little 2.8 Liter diesel is actually just over 4K.  On the other hand there's no way you're going to get 25 MPG in it. 

$7K to repair emission system ever 100K? Is that accurate?

Cost is not the bottom line for me.  It's not a straight cost proposition - Because of global warming / pollution - even if it cost a bit more for me - it would be worth if I could get better MPG. If it cost ALOT more - it wouldn't be worth it; but if it was close - it would definitely be worth it.

 

[cortttt]

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!

Here are some stats

• Direct injection 4-cylinder
  
• 181 hp @  3400 rpm, 369 lb-ft of torque @ 2000 rpm
  
• Active tow-haul mode
  
• Exhaust brake

 

[tx2sturgis]

Here are some stats

• Direct injection 4-cylinder
  
• 181 hp @  3400 rpm, 369 lb-ft of torque @ 2000 rpm
  
• Active tow-haul mode
  
• Exhaust brake

Looks good....and the exhaust brake...yeah that (or an engine brake) should be standard on any LT diesel with a towing package....its THAT valuable.

Thanks for the info!

 

[TexasWoman]

I had an 03 2500 with the 5.3 and averaged 20 mpg mixed, albeit mostly highway.  The should have kept that engine

I wonder why they are discontinuing the 5.3L?

That was supposed to be the best engine they made!

I am looking at a Chevy Passenger van that has one of those in it..   Hmmmm......

Texas Woman
:heart: :heart: :heart:

 

[Ballenxj]

I wonder why they are discontinuing the 5.3L?

That was supposed to be the best engine they made!

5.3 liter = 323.426 cubic inch. Very close to the old 327 which in my humble opinion was one of the best engines Chevy ever made.

 

[cortttt]

I wonder why they are discontinuing the 5.3L?

That was supposed to be the best engine they made!

I am looking at a Chevy Passenger van that has one of those in it..   Hmmmm......

Texas Woman
:heart: :heart: :heart:

I agree it's too bad they discontinued that engine; the 4.8L is a kind of a knockoff of it.

 

[Scout]

i want to follow this thread becuase im looking for my van and the engine is one of my big questions. The diesel comes with a rear heater and im assuming it works without running the engine. The 6.0 has a rear heater ac that is an extention of the factory ac heat with the engine running. These are other factors im considering in addition to the ones mentioned here.
I know there are other ways to heat but im also looking for a good way to ac without running the engine too much.

 

[edsharer]

I have been attempting to get real data as to the mpg and have not had much luck.  One dealer said it got 11 city and 17 freeway which I find hard to believe.  Has anybody seen any actual data on the net or info from anybody on the mpg?

 

[Travelmonkey]

Isn’t it the engine from the Colorado? I would suspect the van would get better mileage than 11/17. Hopefully one of the blogs or car magazines will do a report.

 

[Rabbit]

I joined the forum specifically to reply to this thread, after searching the web for hours for info on this vehicle and finding zip, zero and nada. Though I'll note in passing that I'm in the process of getting a cargo trailer all set up for long-term, and perhaps someday permanent, habitation and therefore plan to stick around. (It's a 6x12; on order but hasn't arrived yet.)

I test-drove a 2017 GMC Savana with the 2.8 Duramax in February 2018. It was the extended version, with a locking differential and was heavily discounted. I shopped it-- and may yet buy it, though I have reservations-- in February 2018 in Florida, so the weather was mild and the roads I drove on were straight and dead-level. There was so little traffic that it wasn't a factor.

Two things really "struck" me about this van. One, it had _much_ better power and acceleration than expected. I mean... I was flat-out shocked by a vehicle I expected to be a complete dog. I don't have words for it-- the thing was quicker than 80% of the non-performance cars I've owned going back to the 1980's; I've owned five pickups and only one of them-- a 2WD 4.3 Sonoma-- could've hoped to keep up. The other surprise wasn't such a good one-- the MPG. In the real world, people are getting 30-32 MPG under ideal conditions out of the Colorado/Canyon with the same engine even in 4x4 models. I tested this van under what should've been absolutely ideal conditions as well, as stated above. Even after cheating by resetting the MPG-meter while moving at highway speed, I could not get a reading over 23 MPG to save my life at a sustained 55-60 MPH. Mostly, I couldn't beat 22. I was hoping for at least 25-26 despite the van's size, since that's what I hear 4-cyl (diesel) Sprinters achieve with an even larger frontal area. While a good breaking-in might add another MPG or two, I was pretty disappointed.

I'll note in passing that there is incorrect information reported in this thread, probably due to the fact that it was started before a lot of details were released. The main thing I'd like to clarify is that the diesel is only a $4-5k option-- I forget the exact figure. (The much-higher figures quoted were for the old V-8 diesel, a much more expensive proposition.

Just for information... I'd probably have already bought the thing regardless of the lower-than-expected MPG on the strength of the excellent international reputation of the 2.8, except for a purely personal issue. It's been bulletproof for many years in overseas vehicles. Everything I read in North American Colorado/Canyon owner forums is almost completely 100% positive as well, and this at a time when many of the owners of other makes and models of diesels seem pretty unhappy. But one key factor is that I want access to the van's cargo area without exiting the vehicle, and I have severe-enough arthritis in my knees that wriggling my way around the "doghouse" isn't at all easy. Nor is just plain old getting in and out much fun either, with the vehicle being so high off the ground, but that's a problem I can't seem to get around with any current-production van. For anyone with good knees who can afford to buy new, or in a few years when they hit the market used... This may be a very, very desirable vehicle. I'm amazed that traditional van-buyers like plumbers and electricians aren't already raving all over the internet about it.

 

[tx2sturgis]

This may be a very, very desirable vehicle. I'm amazed that traditional van-buyers like plumbers and electricians aren't already raving all over the internet about it.

It's a 4 cylinder engine made in Thailand....so that may put off the blue collar plumbers and electricians.

Fleets might be buying them tho....

 

[cortttt]

I joined the forum specifically to reply to this thread, after searching the web for hours for info on this vehicle and finding zip, zero and nada. Though  I'll note in passing that I'm in the process of getting a cargo trailer all set up for long-term, and perhaps someday permanent, habitation and therefore plan to stick around. (It's a 6x12; on order but hasn't arrived yet.)

I test-drove a 2017 GMC Savana with the 2.8 Duramax in February 2018. It was the extended version, with a locking differential and was heavily discounted. I shopped it-- and may yet buy it, though I have reservations-- in February 2018 in Florida, so the weather was mild and the roads I drove on were straight and dead-level. There was so little traffic that it wasn't a factor.

Two things really "struck" me about this van. One, it had _much_ better power and acceleration than expected. I mean... I was flat-out shocked by a vehicle I expected to be a complete dog. I don't have words for it-- the thing was quicker than 80% of the non-performance cars I've owned going back to the 1980's; I've owned five pickups and only one of them-- a 2WD 4.3 Sonoma-- could've hoped to keep up. The other surprise wasn't such a good one-- the MPG. In the real world, people are getting 30-32 MPG under ideal conditions out of the Colorado/Canyon with the same engine even in 4x4 models. I tested this van under what should've been absolutely ideal conditions as well, as stated above. Even after cheating by resetting the MPG-meter while moving at highway speed, I could not get a reading over 23 MPG to save my life at a sustained 55-60 MPH. Mostly, I couldn't beat 22. I was hoping for at least 25-26 despite the van's size, since that's what I hear 4-cyl (diesel) Sprinters achieve with an even larger frontal area. While a good breaking-in might add another MPG or two, I was pretty disappointed.

I'll note in passing that there is incorrect information reported in this thread, probably due to the fact that it was started before a lot of details were released. The main thing I'd like to clarify is that the diesel is only a $4-5k option-- I forget the exact figure. (The much-higher figures quoted were for the old V-8 diesel, a much more expensive proposition.

Just for information... I'd probably have already bought the thing regardless of the lower-than-expected MPG on the strength of the excellent international reputation of the 2.8, except for a purely personal issue. It's been bulletproof for many years in overseas vehicles. Everything I read in North American Colorado/Canyon owner forums is almost completely 100% positive as well, and this at a time when many of the owners of other makes and models of diesels seem pretty unhappy. But one key factor is that I want access to the van's cargo area without exiting the vehicle, and I have severe-enough arthritis in my knees that wriggling my way around the "doghouse" isn't at all easy. Nor is just plain old getting in and out much fun either, with the vehicle being so high off the ground, but that's a problem I can't seem to get around with any current-production van. For anyone with good knees who can afford to buy new, or in a few years when they hit the market used... This may be a very, very desirable vehicle. I'm amazed that traditional van-buyers like plumbers and electricians aren't already raving all over the internet about it.

Great to hear about the test drive. I'm surprised too about the lack of reviews on the web. They are really hard to find..Really glad you presented it here

Good to hear about the acceleration; the gasser is not known for its acceleration

I'd actually be happy with 22/23 on the hwy....about a thirty percent increase over the other engine - really significant increase there even if its not what you want.  

It's hard to tell without an extended test drive since even a small incline or upcline can dramatically effect MPG.  Glad to hear that the acceleration is excellent at low speed. 

I wonder if the doghouse is different in the diesel? Did you check out a gasser?

How much was it discounted?