2016 Toyota Tacoma V6 Towing vs. Chevy Colorado Diesel Duramax

I think prospective buyers ought to understand the way each of these power trains achieve performance and know which character they prefer, because there is a big difference between a diesel that will have already reached peak torque well below 2000 RPM and start losing that peak torque well before it reaches its own peak horsepower, and a typical gas engine that continues to increase both power and torque together as RPM rises. The all-out raw performance, i.e. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times of the Tacoma is going to be far superior, whereas the diesel is going to give respectable performance and never act like it's even trying even at near max loads.

With regards to a well-designed diesel, the character is an easy-going manner under nearly all conditions, but downshifting to get more performance does not result in more performance, like in a drag racing setting. A diesel will keep moving and maintaining a respectable speed under an extreme load at mid-range RPM. But in general, not counting the newly-designed Cummins for the Nissan Titan that is claimed to keep achieving near peak torque up to over 4000 RPM, diesels start losing torque up the RPM range, and so a Tacoma with 278 hp is going to give alot more flat out performance, especially at higher highway speeds than a diesel with 181 hp. On the other hand, under higher load conditions such as towing, this gas engine is going to need to be at and maintain an RPM range that taps in to both the horsepower and the torque, and so that means it'll have to rev high and keep revving high to perform. This usually means lots of fuss and lots of fuel, but if that's what one likes and prefers, he or she should stay clear of diesels.

If one is used to and prefers the way gas engines generate peak performance, that is with a screaming engine, he or she won't like or appreciate a well-designed diesel. On the other hand, those who have become accustomed to and prefer the way diesels never seem to sweat anything, or never need to be driven above 3000 RPM to keep trudging along, it is these folks that will want a diesel. It gives a feeling of refinement but not raw performance.

In my VW Jetta TDI, with an increasing posted speed limit coming up in the middle of an uphill grade, I'll get in the passing lane and actually upshift before I reach 3000 RPM to achieve the best performance, while, at the same time, the gas-powered vehicles are downshifting to keep up. They are in a way, opposite characters. I much prefer the diesel, but I don't need a crew cab or a standard tow package, so a little disappointed in the offering.

“…there are no compromises with the Colorado diesel. It offers exceptional capability delivered with a confident feeling of control.”

This is an utterly, B.S. statement. The motor (gas or diesel) offers nothing in the way of a feeling of control. A diesel may get the load moving quicker/better but neither motor will offer anything when it comes to controlling the load once it is moving.

I'd be afraid of pulling 6,000 pounds with either of these trucks, let alone anything close to their respective max specs.

You bumpkins need to go to the community college and take a Freshman class in Physics to learn the relationship between Horsepower and Torque. Acceleration is determined by torque at the wheel. The more torque at the wheel the more acceleration. The Colorado has 1/3rd more torque at peak than the Tacoma. However, this is at 2K RPM. At what RPM does the Tacoma create peak torque? Looking at Toyota's website - 4,600 RPM. So, it is correct to conclude the Tacoma will be at a lower gear ratio when operating at peak torque. Not having the torque curves of both engines it is impossible to answer with certainty which will accelerate more quickly in a "passing situation". Also depends what speed you are operating at. If both vehicles are in either first or second gear I know who I would put my money on, and it isn't the gasser. At higher speeds the Tacoma will more than likely have the advantage, but do you really want to be operating at 4,600+ RPM when you could be operating at 2K?

MIT Grad. You are forgetting the fact that you are comparing 278hp to 181hp There is no advantage to low hp. Torque will not make you get up into the speed of traffic or allow you to accelerate like a gas motor will. If you want torque you can also turbo the gas motor. Fords 2.7 ECO BOOST makes more torque and way more hp at similar fuel mileages at low rpm in a heavier truck. Since diesel is turbocharged, lets talk turbo charged gas motors. If you want to talk Tacoma then realize there is 278hp available vs only 181hp. The only advantage to the diesel is that its slow acceleration wont be much slower under load. It will still be slow but under load it wont get much slower, but it is still slow, did I say slow, how about gutless, doesn't matter where the gas pedal is, just like stepping on paper, cant get any flatter

On the contrary, there is an advantage to lower, peak power outputs, with relatively higher peak torque levels that diesels provide drivers. That advantages are called "efficiency", "fuel economy", "superior refinement" and "reduced engine wear" under heavy loads. I absolutely agree with what Thomas has asserted but it's missing an element or two. It is true that equally-modern and well-designed gas versus diesel engine will produce a gas engine with more all out performance, as in a better racer and more likely to accelerate up a hill even under a load, because, just as Thomas described with respect to the gas engine, the hp continues to rise with RPM along with torque. In other words, the rise in both performance measures more or less move together or linear all the way up to at least 4,000 RPM where the torque will start to peak, while the hp will continue to rise up to near redline.

Conversely, a comparable diesel will not have the same level of peak performance, because it's basically got all the toque right from the get go where the horsepower is very low, and then as the RPM rises above 2500 (the point at which the horsepower starts to really build), the torque starts to drop. So someone may ask what is the advantage to this? It's simple, when an engine is putting out a lot of power output (horsepower) it is using a lot of energy and using energy means that it's burning fuel, but a gas engine can't get torque at a low power output level, so when it's under a load or trying to maintain or accelerate up a hill, it's got to get to a higher RPM and build horsepower to get that torque. But a diesel doesn't need to drop gears or gain horsepower to get that torque; it's already got it. And therefore, if one is max towing up a hill in a diesel at or about 3000 RPM at just under peak torque; and another equally loaded vehicle with a gas engine is doing the same thing at 5200 RPM (even if there is a little power left in reserve to accelerate), the diesel driver is getting much better mpg, and the diesel driver is having a much improved, refined, driving experience than the gas-powered driver behind the wheel of a screaming engine.

Another aspect of this is usable power. Yes the gas engine has much more horsepower, but how often is the driver going to be driving in the RPM range to tap this power? If he or she is going to be at or above 4000 RPM often, then he or she is going to wish he or she was driving the diesel where he or she could do the same work with much less horsepower putting less wear on the engine, having a superior driving experience, and spending less at the fuel pump. If another driver doesn't need the horsepower very often, then he or she is going to wish for the diesel just because it get better mpg under lighter loads as well.

So, there are two valid arguments that those who prefer gas power will make: the cost argument, which is absolutely valid due to the EPA's fuel neutral policy, which makes an already-more-expensive-to-build diesel engine cost thousands more to market to the public; and then there is this all-out performance argument, which is also valid but only to those who want and prefer to drive vehicles that are "fast", as in racing fast, and do not care how much fuel they have to buy to go fast, even in high utility situations. It can be argued that diesels are slow versus race-inspired, gas engines; but "slow" is a relative term and most Americans are plenty satisfied with diesels from a performance standpoint, and most prefer them once they drive them due to the fact that diesel drivers can reach peak torque without dealing with a screaming engine.

So what this all comes down to for most Americans is the cost to drive the little Duramax versus the V6. If someone is in the market for a crew cab, with lots of bells and whistles, and most every active safety and towing option, then the Duramax makes sense, because then it's only $3730 more. But if all you wanted was a $25K extra cab truck, as you can get with the V6, and was hoping to spend no more than an extra $4K for a little Duramax; the you're out of luck, because GM won't let you have such a truck. You must pay at least $34K and take a highly-featured, towing version of the truck with lots of bells and whistles.

Then there are a few out there that want a truck that is ready for the racetrack. The Duramax is not for you either.

As for DI, turbo-charged gas engines, I own one. I paid only $495 more for an Ecoboost in an F150 versus the base engine, versus the $13,000 more it would have cost me for a little Duramax in a Colorado/Canyon versus that base truck and base engine. The DI/turbo-charged, gas engines do have some merit, but the promise of this technology to save fuel is way over stated and requires very careful driving to get any advantage whatsoever. I can make this assertion from first-hand experience. I'm averaging 23 mpg in a full-size truck but have rarely put my foot on the pedal with much pressure and rarely downshift to accelerate at a faster pace. The few times that I have put my foot on the gas, the mpg began to drop immediately, and so most folks with the F150 and the 2.7 Ecoboost are getting 17-20 mpg as indicated on fuelly.com. Pretty good, but still very truck like. But for my situation, for what I need a truck for, and the configuration and gearing that I've got, and knowing what I know about getting the most efficiency out of this type of engine, It's doing pretty good for me; especially for the price.

This technology does equalize things a lot from a performance standpoint. Although they don't quite come up to the level of peak torque for any given horsepower as a diesel engine, they are much closer on the low end of the RPM range (example Ford's 2.7 Ecoboost--375 peak lbs foot of torque @ 3000 RPM, versus Ram's 3.0 V6 Ecodiesel @ 420 peak lbs foot torque @ 2000 RPM), yet, unlike a diesel, they also have the advantage of naturally-aspired gas-power as they continue to maintain that torque up the RPM range, and so, except for the new Cummins 5.0 diesel which seems to maintain torque above 4000 RPM (some how), most diesels will lose torque up the RPM range; whereas the gas turbos do not. This means that the engines like the Ecoboost have power and torque on tap just about all the time, in any situation.

But herein lies the problem with the DI turbo gas-powered technologies. This does not solve the problem that a spark-ignition engine must maintain a fairly-rich by comparison air-to-fuel ratio, and so when one stomps on the accelerator to spool up the turbo to suck in air, the fuel comes in fast and furious as well (contrary to compression-ignition), and so when I need performance, just like with a naturally-aspired, gas engine (or even worse), I get horrible mpg.

The advantage to the DI turbo-charged gas engine for me is the enhanced low end torque under light loads, and the small premium in price; particularly the latter. My 2.7 Ecoboost in a 4200 lb F150 drives and performs just like a V8 for daily driving, because those added components give it a little more drive around torque, meaning less downshifting, a more pleasurable driving experience, and better mpg. But if I put my foot on the gas, any advantage that I might have had with regular driving goes away and may actually be worse than a V8. When driving around easily and conservatively, the metered fueling of the direct injection and the slight boost of the turbo gives me a "big engine" feel except for the lack of engine braking due to the small displacement, but if I need or want to access all the power available with this truck, it's going to suck fuel as bad as a 6.2-liter V8.

A couple things if the width of a full size isnt an issue. You go full sized for payload capability, stability etc.

If parking is an issue ie your a city person then the narrower mid sized rigs are an option. The reason the midsized market is heating up? Simple the SUV is no longer a truck. Its a car based platform and lacks load capability and in some cases rough road ability. The efficient light duty pick ups with sedan like interiors are great alternatives to the Highlanders, Subarus, even in some cases Mini van. ^ all those vehicles are pushing 40k today. So when I see people complain that a 4dr Canyon, with 30mpg capability and nice executive level interior is a 40k machine, my first thought is that truck is not ment to target that audience. The work truck F150 or Dodge are actually targeting the working guy/gal using the truck for truck work. Not weekend hobbies which is why we call the midsized rigs Life style trucks. Not work trucks.

I have to chime in on this one after reading these comments. As far as all the statements Thomas wrote negative about a diesel is not all true.
The modern diesel vehicles do NOT smell. NOX is not soot, but soot is a by product of burning a diesel fuel but the DPF in the exhaust captures the soot. NOX can not be seen and is hardly detected in modern diesels do to the DEF fluid they run.
I currently have the Canyon diesel and love it. One thing he stated is the the maint is higher which is somewhat true but not by much. Every 5000 miles you need to add $7 worth of DEF fluid. And fuel filter needs changed about every 15000 miles. Other then that the maintenance is the same between gas and diesel. Oil changes have longer intervals with the diesel so that is not really a factor.
Yes the pumps are messy but just grab a paper towel at pump before you grab the handle and your good. I have no problems finding diesel pumps just when you find a diesel pump a gasser is parked there because the pumps usually have both. The reason the pump is always blocked by gassers is because its the easiest pump to pull up to for a reason. People with diesels usually are pulling trailers and need a straight shot in to the pumps.
And yes the diesel option costs $3000 more when purchasing but you will get that back if you sell or trade it later.
The mpg of the diesel is great. :) The best I have seen is 34.6mpg and worse I've seen pulling 5000lbs is 16 mpg. Average back and forth to work during summer is 26 and winter it drops to 23.
Another myth is the diesel can not pass cars going down the interstate. Thats BS, I have no problem passing by cars going 70 down the road. The only difference is the diesel will stay in 6th gear when passing at 70mph. Never have a problem accelerating thru a intersection.

I guess I'm saying to potential buyers, don't believe all of the negative comments about these diesels. Most of the comments come from people that probably never have owned or driven a modern diesel since 2008. This is my second diesel and don't regret the Canyon purchase.

Exactly Tom on many points...

Diesel fuel is no worse smelling than gasoline; it's just that most Americans are more used to smelling nasty gasoline than nasty diesel. The only thing that may make diesel slightly worse is that it does not evaporate, but that's a positive thing as it relates to pollution...

NOx has nothing to do with black smoke or soot, the latter has been totally eliminated from modern diesels. NOx is a class of gasses created by lean combustion. Gas engines don't create them, because they run rich by comparison and must do so in order that gasoline ignites via a spark. NOx is not a harmful substance like soot. NOx is a precursor to smog and in order for smog to be created by NOx it has to combine with other man-made compounds in the air like VOCs. VOCs come from plastics; from the tailpipes of gas cars; and from manufacturing processes. Back in the late 90s, the EPA and the California ARB conspired on a plan to make the trucking industry pay for reducing smog by cracking down on NOx from diesel exhaust; thereby keeping it easy on the auto industry and from manufacturing for reducing smog. This is how we ended up with limits on NOx down to near nothing for light-duty vehicles and it's also how we ended up with very expensive and very complicated and complex and sophisticated diesel engines under the hoods of everything diesel.

The modern, soot-free diesel engine can be designed to be at least as powerful as a naturally-aspired gas engine of equal displacement nowadays. Those that think otherwise are thinking of the "good ole days". The limits on NOx that are only applied in North America puts slight limits on their performance and limits how marketable they are here, because it makes them so hard to build and so expensive to certify for 50-state emissions.

Modern diesel engines are amazing. Almost everything about the technologies have surpassed that of spark-ignition except that power and torque are not quite as linear. But if you think about it, horsepower is the enemy of fuel economy. The more work you can get out of an engine at the lowest possible horsepower being generated, the less fuel you're going to burn everything else being equal; so if a torquey little diesel is moving a pickup and its load at 70 mph and generating only 90 horsepower; it's going to get better mpg than an equally-displaced gas engine doing the same thing generating 130 horsepower.

I own a 2016 Colorado Diesel for business. I am in the piano repair business and haul a 8 x 10 box trailer that I can fit up to 3 grands and I upright in. Thus far the diesel is more than you could hope for. I average 26.7 miles gallon per tank on service calls with typically 1 day of towing. The Diesel, is quite, and pulls the trailer with pianos effortlessly. My last vehicle was a 98 Chevy Tahoe. This Diesel, struggles less, tows more and gets double the gas mileage. In addition, it has no issue passing or moving along down the road. Why anyone would prefer a gas motor in a truck required to tow or carry loads and be economical is beyond me. I can use this truck for regular service calls or when towing and have the best of both worlds. Much of the rest of the world relies on small diesel trucks to get the job done. Not sure why America is not on board. However, electric motors at some point may be the thing as torque is available immediately....