The none DI 2.4L is dead and replaced by the DI version in new car models. DI 2.4L would make a good base engine though. 3.0L doesn't have enough torque, 3.6L should be used, it cost about the same to build. If people complain about a 3.5L engine in the current truck, they will complain even more about a 3.0L in the next.

 

Aren't the next gen fullsizes coming out pretty soon? I would hope that they are planning on a new base V6 and will finally get rid of the 4.3. A 3.6 tuned for low end torque like the variant in lambda would work well as the fullsize's base motor and midsized/compact's top choice.

 

Put in the LNF!!!

Turbos = torque. Trucks need torque.

 

Or a good possibility for the compact truck - go turbo diesel. That way you get the improved fuel efficency, as well as good the low-end torque.

 

I wanna SS model..... with a V8

 

I highly doubt you'll see a compact truck with a V8 engine.

After 2015 you'll to have a compact truck with a large V6 (over 3.5L)- unless it's a turbo diesel.

 

You mean like the current Colorado with the 5.3L?

 

The only problem with the current V-8 Colorado is that it isn't available in a regular cab, 2wd, manual trans. configuration.

 

That model won't sell in high enough quantities to justify the investment for the design, engineering, certification costs. That is why it isn't going to happen. The H3 paid for the Colorado/Canyon to get the V8, and that won't happen again.

 

There needs to be good reasons to buy a small truck. It should be significantly (in my opinion) easier to get around town in, cheaper, and get significantly (in my opinion) better gas mileage. Most "small" trucks right now really don't do that, with the possible exception of the very old 4 cyl 5 speed Rangers (my oldest boy just bought one though...really neat little truck), and perhaps the I4 GM twins.

I still have a 97 Mazda B2300 (Ranger clone) 4cyl 5sp back in Texas - will likely be my youngest son's college truck starting this fall. Bought it in 2007 with 75k miles on it for $2500 (everybody wants the V6, power this & that, etc). It's a base model model, and is quite underpowered, but it is very easy to get around in, dependable, cheap/easy to work on, and gets 22-23 mpg city and 25-26 mpg on the highway. It now has over 150k miles on it, and the only thing I've replaced is the timing belt (at 125k, it was due!). Among many other things it has pulled, I flat-towed my 99 Cobra from Va Beach to North Texas two years ago. It sure didn't like the mountains, and I was in 4th gear a lot (and 3rd some), but it motored right along.

Love that little truck...

 

Here we go:



My dad had that in the Bahamas for a short while. Nice little truck.

 

Unless this truck is small, cheap and fuel efficient, I don't really see much point in it.

The spy pics make me think it's a freshened Colorado though.

 

I don't know why they don't base a new V6 for the trucks based off of the 6.2 liter V8's. That should be good for a 275hp cam in block V6 that would be pretty badass IMO.

As a GM tech I would own a 4.3 small truck way before a 3.6 truck. Besides, the truck is supposed to be cheap anyway. I've seen way more 3.6's torn apart for timing chains, piston wrings, and oil leaks than 4.3's. And 4.3's are already super torquey.

Anyway I would be interested in a "small" truck with a ecotec and a A6 transmission

 

Unless you're also speaking about experience from 10-15 years ago when the 4.3 was more mainstream, the 3.6 is comparatively produced in much higher numbers right now. You would expect a dealer to do more work on them.

But hey, who knows. Maybe we'll see a V6 based on the gen V small blocks.

 

I think you are right, that is what it looks like to me. Cheap and fuel efficient should be huge priorities. Toyota Tacoma is bigger than the Colorado and is pretty popular. I think people will be fine with a Colorado size truck as long as the fuel economy and price are right. I'm almost more interested to see what Ford does with the next Ranger.